Reads an indexed source passage with neighboring chunks to provide original wording for citation-backed answers. Use paper ID and chunk index to retrieve exact context.
Read an indexed source passage plus its neighboring chunks; preserves original wording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| neighbors | No | ||
| chunk_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and discloses that neighboring chunks are returned and original wording is preserved. However, it omits indexing requirements, neighbor semantics, return format, and any permissions or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and places the core action first.
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 three parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter definitions, usage routing, and behavioral details that an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 0%, so the schema provides only parameter names. The description loosely connects to the domain ('indexed source passage', 'neighboring chunks') but never defines paper_id, chunk_index, or what the neighbors parameter controls.
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 ('Read') and resource ('indexed source passage plus its neighboring chunks'), and adds a key property ('preserves original wording'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like retrieve_evidence, but the core action is clear.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this tool over retrieve_evidence, search_papers, or read_summary are provided. Usage is only implied by the word 'indexed'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.