extract_chapter_content

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 a key behavioral trait: the tool caches extracted content, which signals a persistent side effect. However, it does not describe what happens on cache hits, whether force_reextract overwrites, what it returns, or permissions needed.

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?

One sentence with no wasteful words. The action, resource, side effect, and purpose are all packed in efficiently and front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a caching side effect, this description is too thin. It leaves important questions unanswered: does it return the extracted content or just cache it, how does force_reextract interact with existing cache entries, and when should the agent use this versus the sibling get/search tools?

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'text and images', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Extract'), resource ('text and images from a chapter'), and a clear side effect ('cache') for a defined purpose ('future searches'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling retrieval tools like get_chapter_text and get_chapter_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?

The phrase 'for future searches' implies this is a preparation step before search_content, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_chapter_text or get_chapter_section, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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