chunk_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, handles large files, requires specific file extensions, or any error conditions. For a file-parsing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two short segments. The first sentence is front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args:' list is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not harm conciseness significantly.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return values is not required. The description covers purpose adequately, but for a code parsing tool, more context on supported languages or error handling would improve completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate.

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%, but the description adds meaning to the only parameter 'file_path' by stating 'Path to code file to chunk'. However, it does not specify allowed file types or constraints, limiting added value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Parse', the resource 'code file', and the outcome 'semantic chunks (functions, classes, methods) for better RAG retrieval'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which appear to perform code chunking.

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 includes contextual usage hint 'for better RAG retrieval', indicating when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools do not overlap, so the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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