get_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful traits: the result is a 'full' chunk, the operation is the 'cheapest way' to read a single item, and the chunk represents a theorem, proof, or definition. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or consequences of an invalid/stale id.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the cost/use-case rationale is in the second. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the parameter source, the content type, and the cost profile. It could add explicit not-found behavior or a pointer to alternatives, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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. It does by explaining that chunk_id is the id shown in search results, which is the key semantic an agent needs to use the tool. For a single integer parameter, this is nearly sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one chunk'), and adds the scope 'in full' and the id provenance 'shown in search results'. It also names the content type (theorem, proof, or definition), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pages and get_section.

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?

'This is the cheapest way to read a single theorem, proof or definition' gives a clear when-to-use signal, and 'by the id shown in search results' tells the agent where to obtain the argument. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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