scf_get_document_section_generated

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: 'read — viewer role' clarifies permission expectations, and 'ignoring any human edit' reveals a key behavioral trait. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.

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?

Two sentences carry the purpose, read-only role, behavioral distinction, and intended usage context without fluff. The important 'ignoring any human edit' qualifier is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only get tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers what the tool does, who can use it, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the return concept is clear from 'get the generator's own version of a section'; a bit more return-shape detail would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions (source tool, formatting warning for slashes, optional version behavior). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the generator's own version of a section', and crisply distinguishes it from human-edited content by stating 'ignoring any human edit'. This makes the tool's unique purpose clear against similar document/section siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to see what the platform would produce before resolving a conflict.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like scf_get_document or scf_resolve_document_section for contrast.

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