Get one chapter (1-81) in both public renderings: the public-domain James Legge (1891) translation and Dao De Kooi, an original rendering by David Kooi. Each carries its own attribution and a ready-to-use citation string. The Kooi rendering is NOT public domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both renderings are returned, each includes attribution and a citation string, and importantly flags that the Kooi rendering is NOT public domain. This licensing caution is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'get'.
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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds attribution/citation details, and the third notes the licensing constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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 chapter-retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return content (both renderings), citations, and a licensing caveat. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, without needing additional behavioral notes.
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 schema shows only one parameter 'number' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that this number refers to the chapter and reiterates the valid range (1-81). It does not fully explain behavior for invalid inputs, but for a single integer parameter with min/max, this is adequate.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'one chapter (1-81)', while also specifying the two renderings (Legge and Kooi). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_chapters and search_chapters, which have different purposes.
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 intended usage is implied: call this when you need a specific chapter by number, as opposed to listing or searching. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of list_chapters' or mention exclusions, but the clear context and sibling names provide enough guidance for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: consult matches situations to chapters, get_chapter retrieves by number, list_chapters provides an overview, and search_chapters finds text. The description explicitly contrasts consult with search, eliminating ambiguity.
Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_chapter, list_chapters, search_chapters), while 'consult' is a bare verb without an object. All names are lowercase with underscores, so the inconsistency is minor and readability is high.
Four tools is a well-scoped count for a niche server: it covers consultation, retrieval, listing, and searching without redundancy or unnecessary bloat. This falls squarely within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers the full domain lifecycle: orient (list), retrieve (get), find by text (search), and get situational guidance (consult). No obvious gaps exist for a textual study server.