chamber_corpus

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by specifying that the tool identifies files 'far above the median passage count' and interprets them as 'the signature of an export rather than a note.' It also explicitly states 'Read-only,' reinforcing the annotation without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first enumerates the tool's report contents, the second gives usage guidance and a safety note. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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 having no parameters or output schema, the description thoroughly sets expectations: it lists the report contents, explains the outlier heuristic, and tells the agent when to invoke the tool. The 'Read-only' statement also confirms safety, making this a self-contained description.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description doesn't need to explain parameter usage, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 opens with 'Report what is actually in the index'—a specific verb and resource—and then enumerates the exact report contents (counts, source kinds, top folders, outliers). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools chamber_ask and chamber_verify, which are about querying rather than inspecting the corpus.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger for use: 'Use this before trusting a "nothing matches" answer.' This is a clear context. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or reference alternatives by name, so it's one step below full guidance.

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