chunker_chunk_text

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool splits text, lists modes, and specifies the output format (list of objects with index, text, char_count, token_estimate). However, it does not explain default values for max_chars and overlap, how overlap interacts with different modes, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose, modes, and return type. It is efficiently front-loaded but could benefit from a clearer structure, such as bullet points for parameters or a separate note about defaults.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (text chunking with multiple modes, overlap, size control) and the existence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, modes, and return structure but omits details on parameter interactions and defaults. The output schema helps define the return structure, but the description alone is insufficient for confident agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'mode' parameter with its allowed values (chars/tokens/sentences/paragraphs). The 'text', 'max_chars', and 'overlap' parameters receive no additional meaning beyond their schema definitions (which lack descriptions), making the parameter semantics weak.

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 the tool splits text into chunks and lists the available chunking modes (chars/tokens/sentences/paragraphs). It defines the return structure, differentiating it from sibling tools like chunker_chunk_by_separator or chunker_chunk_sliding_window, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 implies appropriate use for text chunking with various modes but offers no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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