github_get_worker_chunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation ('Fetches') and mentions 'frozen snapshot' suggesting immutability, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether authentication is required, or what happens on invalid session_id/worker_id. It also does not mention any side effects or rate limits. Since it appears to be a safe read operation but this is not explicitly confirmed, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key qualifiers ('exact frozen snapshot chunk', 'assigned to this worker', 'including pre-distilled READMEs'). There is no redundancy or fluff; every word contributes to clarity.

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's role in a distributed orchestration workflow and the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or what an agent should do with the fetched chunk. It also does not mention any prerequisites or ordering relative to sibling tools (e.g., whether it must be called after github_orchestrate_workers). While it clearly states what it fetches, it omits important operational context for an agent to use it correctly in the larger workflow.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented (session_id, worker_id, profile). The description reiterates session_id and worker_id but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'pre-distilled READMEs' hints at the profile's effect on README budget, but that is not directly parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers parameters fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches'), a precise resource ('frozen snapshot chunk'), and the assignment criteria (session_id and worker_id). It also notes the inclusion of 'pre-distilled READMEs,' which further clarifies content. The 'Worker Tool' prefix and the mention of 'assigned to this worker' distinguish it from orchestration or submission tools among siblings.

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 labels it a 'Worker Tool' and references 'assigned to this worker,' implying it is for a worker agent to retrieve its own chunk during a distributed process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list (e.g., github_orchestrate_workers, github_submit_worker_digest) and the phrasing provide strong contextual guidance. Slight gap in explicit exclusions.

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