list_sections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'get list,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, filtering behavior, permissions, or the absence of side effects. This is minimal information for an agent selecting the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant words. It is easy to parse, though slightly terse; a bit more behavioral or contextual detail would make it more appropriately sized for agent decision-making.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, this is minimally viable: it names the resource and the schema covers the required parameter. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not describe return fields, pagination, ordering, or edge cases, leaving meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents company_id as '事業所ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not help clarify what company_id means beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific operation: obtaining a list of departments (部門一覧を取得). It identifies both the verb and the resource, so an agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling list_* tools or mention scoping beyond the required company_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that company_id is required to scope the result, nor does it reference related tools such as get_companies. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'list of departments.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.