egw_get_chapter

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve a full chapter' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not mention formatting, size, or authentication, but for a simple chapter-fetch tool these are less critical and the output schema is said to exist.

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 compact and front-loaded. The opening sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the Args section adds only the necessary parameter detail. No filler or redundant content.

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 low-complexity tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage: target book and chapter number, plus acceptable book abbreviations. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note that the chapter is from the specified EGW book only, and it does not address potential invalid-input behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'book' is explained as a title or abbreviation with concrete examples (SC, DA, GC, PP, COL, MB), and 'chapter' is clarified as a chapter number. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retrieve a full chapter from an Ellen G. White book.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like egw_search and egw_books by targeting full-chapter retrieval rather than search or book listing.

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 when to use the tool (when a full chapter is needed) and clarifies the book argument with accepted abbreviations, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as egw_search for searching. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly differentiated.

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