get_chunk_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavioral traits. 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation, but the description omits other relevant behaviors such as handling of null end_line or line numbering conventions. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence: 'Retrieve a line-range slice from a file.' Every word contributes, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain defaults (start_line=1, end_line=null), line indexing, or how repo_root and file_path interact. The output schema may cover return values, but input behavior remains under-specified.

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. 'Line-range slice' loosely implies start_line and end_line, but it does not explicitly explain file_path, repo_root, or defaults. The description adds only partial meaning for two of the four parameters.

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 'Retrieve a line-range slice from a file' clearly identifies the tool's action (retrieve), resource (line-range slice), and target (file). It distinguishes from siblings like read_memory_tool (memory) and scan_repo_tool (repo-wide scanning), though it could be more explicit about repository vs. local files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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