list_chapters

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

With no annotations to indicate side effects or safety, the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe any potential errors or limitations. The brief mention of output content ('chapter numbers and titles') is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant or extraneous information. It is well-structured for a simple listing tool.

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 the lack of return-format details is acceptable. However, the description omits usage context, edge cases, and any relationship to sibling tools, making it only partially complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 only parameter, 'corpus', is not described in the schema. The description's phrase 'for one corpus' hints that it is a corpus identifier, but it does not clarify expected format, allowed values, or how to obtain such an identifier. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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 identifies the resource (chapters) and the scope (one corpus), and the noun phrase 'Table of contents' effectively conveys the listing intent. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with sibling tools like get_section or list_corpora, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 such as get_section or search_code. It does not mention any preconditions or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and parameters.

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