get_chunk

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

The description discloses key behaviors: content truncation based on token_budget and optional inclusion of neighboring chunks and document metadata. It does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid ID) or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise, using three short sentences to convey purpose, usage, and optional features. Parameter descriptions are similarly succinct and free of fluff.

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 description gives enough context for a moderately simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It covers the main use case and parameter semantics, but omits edge-case behavior (e.g., missing ID, token_budget limits) and any return structure, which would be useful for full completeness.

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?

All four parameters have clear, descriptive explanations that specify their purpose and effect. The id parameter notes its source (search_docs result), token_budget explains truncation, and the boolean flags define what extra context is included. The schema is fully covered.

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 specifies the action ('Retrieve full content') and the target resource ('a specific chunk by ID'). It also situates the tool in a workflow by referencing search_docs, distinguishing it from the sibling search tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after search_docs to lazily expand only the chunks you need'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, leaving some inference to the agent.

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