get_doc_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior such as authentication requirements, side effects (none expected), error handling, or return value structure. The agent has no idea what happens on failure or how output is formatted.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified for the information needed, but conciseness itself is good.

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 has two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about what output to expect, how to use 'max_chars', and how 'chunk_id' relates to the indexed sections. Currently, it lacks completeness for an agent to use effectively.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'chunk_id' is not explained (type, format, example), and 'max_chars' is left ambiguous (likely character limit on content). The default of 4000 is given in schema but no interpretation.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('local indexed section/chunk') using the identifier 'chunk_id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_doc_sections' and 'get_doc' by specifying 'local indexed section/chunk'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_doc_sections' or 'get_doc'. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases is given.

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