get_document_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Return ordered chunks,' implying a read operation. No behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits, idempotency) are disclosed, which is insufficient for a mutation-free analysis tool.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is too brief for a tool with parameters and no schema descriptions. Front-loading the core action is good, but essential details are missing, making it minimally adequate.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are not strictly required. However, the description fails to explain how the 'ordered chunks' are organized, how 'limit' affects results, or what 'document_id' refers to, leaving significant gaps for a tool with two parameters and no param descriptions.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the two parameters. 'document_id' and 'limit' are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their purposes without any additional context.

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 returns ordered chunks from one source document, specifying the verb (Return) and resource (ordered chunks from one source document). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sources and corpus_status, which likely provide different functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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