Preview Chunking (Dry Run)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds specific behavioral details: fetching text, semantic chunking, and OCR quality scoring, plus the full-text source constraint. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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 exceptionally concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information: 'Dry run', 'fetch text, chunk semantically, score OCR quality', 'No writes', 'Full-text sources only'. No waste.

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 description covers the core function and constraints, and an output schema exists, which helps. However, the undocumented id parameter is a notable gap, and the description doesn't explain what 'score OCR quality' means in practice. Overall, it's adequate but not complete for an agent to use without ambiguity.

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 50%: the source parameter is documented with a helpful reference to library_list_sources, but the id parameter has no description. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented id. An agent would have to infer that id identifies a document, which is a significant gap.

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's specific actions: dry run, fetch text, chunk semantically, score OCR quality, with explicit constraints (no writes, full-text sources only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like library_ingest or library_read, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it's a dry run, no writes, and only for full-text sources. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, these constraints imply when it's appropriate versus the ingest tool. This is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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