get_erskine_may_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (title, description, section list), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or whether the chapter number must exist. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 pipe-delimited first sentence is front-loaded and compact, though the Args/Returns block duplicates information already conveyed in the prose and in the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still omits how this tool sits relative to get_erskine_may_part and get_erskine_may_section. For a single-parameter lookup that is minimally acceptable but leaves the hierarchy ambiguous.

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% and the sole parameter is documented only as 'chapter_number: Chapter number', which merely restates the parameter name and the schema's own title. No format, range, or valid-value guidance is added.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a specific chapter of Erskine May') and confirms it returns chapter content with a section list. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling Erskine May tools (get_erskine_may_parts, get_erskine_may_part, get_erskine_may_section), so an agent must infer the hierarchy level on its own.

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?

'Use to explore sections within a chapter' gives an implied usage context but no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to alternatives like get_erskine_may_part or get_erskine_may_section, which is a notable gap given the dense cluster of sibling tools.

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