reader_get_chapter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies what is included in the returned data ('all paragraph annotations and highlights'). No side effects or contradictions are present, but it does not disclose any potential errors or prerequisites.

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 with the action verb front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, conveying the essential information efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description specifies enough about the expected output (chapter with annotations and highlights) to understand its general behavior. However, the absence of any output schema details or additional context about the return structure slightly limits completeness, though it is adequate for a basic understanding.

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 provides only types and names for the two parameters (book_id, chapter_index) with zero descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning, format, or constraints of these parameters (e.g., zero-based indexing, ID scope). This leaves parameter semantics largely undefined.

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's function with a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource: 'a chapter with all paragraph annotations and highlights.' It is distinct from sibling tools like reader_list_books and reader_get_paragraph_thread, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when needing chapter content with annotations and highlights) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage is inferable from the name and description, but not explicitly stated.

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