get_chapter

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — the source ('daemon's output') and the completion constraint — but discloses no further behavioral traits like error behavior for uncompleted chapters. This is consistent with annotations and adds a modest amount of value, matching the lowered bar.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every word contributes meaning; there is nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema documentation and safety annotations, the description plus schema covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the unspecified behavior when a requested chapter is not yet completed, a nuance that would round out the picture but is not critical.

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 100% for both required parameters (book and chapter), so the schema carries the full burden and the description need not add parameter detail. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable under the 100%-coverage baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('a completed chapter'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. The 'completed' and 'daemon's output' qualifiers separate it from sibling read tools like get_premise, get_progress, and get_status, though it never names a sibling explicitly. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't draw an explicit boundary against any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite seven similar get_* siblings. The word 'completed' weakly implies using the tool only after the daemon has finished a chapter, which prevents a 1, but an agent is left to infer all routing decisions on its own.

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