chunk_file

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only and does not index, embed, or write, which is helpful given no annotations. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., missing file) or the return format, which is critical since no output schema is provided.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description fails to specify the output structure (e.g., what a chunk looks like) or error handling. With no output schema, this is a significant gap that hinders an agent from correctly using the results.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without adding significant value.

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 reads a Markdown note and returns deterministic, embedding-ready chunks. The verb 'Read' and resource 'Markdown note' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'chunk_text', which might accept arbitrary text rather than reading from a path.

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 advises to use the tool 'before designing chunk embeddings or context packs', giving an implied usage context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like 'read_file' or 'chunk_text'.

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