get_subchunk_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden but only lists output components. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how 'adjacent context' is measured, any performance implications, or edge cases such as missing subchunk behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core function.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read operation with an output schema and fully described parameters, so the description is somewhat adequate. However, it lacks usage context, radius semantics, and any behavioral caveats, making it minimally complete rather than fully contextual.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight semantic hint by linking 'adjacent context' to the tool's output, but it does not clarify the radius parameter's behavior beyond the schema's vague 'Reserved context radius'.

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 returns a single Subchunk with title path, adjacent context, and linked Event/spatiotemporal evidence, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_spatiotemporal_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no explicit decision support.

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