Get Shelby Doc Chunk

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that it reads a 'specific' page and mentions the maxChars parameter for output truncation, which is useful behavioral detail not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarity, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (read operation), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be useful since there is no output schema, but it adequately covers the essential context for use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'id' parameter comes from search_shelby_docs, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 specific action ('Read'), resource ('Shelby documentation page'), and scope ('by its exact chunk ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_shelby_doc_pages (list), read_shelby_doc (read by different identifier), and search_shelby_docs (search). It precisely communicates what the tool does.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by its exact chunk ID' and referencing 'search_shelby_docs' as the source for IDs, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as read_shelby_doc for different access methods.

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