chunk_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'parse' but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what file types are supported, or how errors (e.g., missing file) are handled. The purpose is clear, but behavioral details are sparse.

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 one sentence and an args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The structure is efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more organization (e.g., bullet points).

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits important context such as supported programming languages, file size limits, and error behavior. This makes it adequate but incomplete for a code parsing tool.

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?

The description explains the single parameter 'file_path' as a path to a code file to chunk, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by providing context.

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 tool's function: parsing code files into semantic chunks (functions, classes, methods) for RAG retrieval. The verb 'parse' and resource 'code file' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_knowledge' which focus on searching.

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 use for RAG retrieval but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, and the context does not clarify when this tool is preferred over siblings.

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