rlm.chunk.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and arguments, with no insight into side effects (e.g., whether the document is modified, if the session state changes, or what the output contains).

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 minimal and front-loaded: a single sentence followed by a compact argument list. No fluff or redundant information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested object, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on output, error conditions, and whether chunking affects the source document. The output schema existing does not fully compensate for missing description of behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing argument names and, for the 'strategy' object, its constituent fields ('type, chunk_size, line_count, delimiter, overlap'). However, it does not specify types, constraints, or which fields are required, leaving ambiguity.

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 action: 'Chunk a document using a specified strategy.' It uses a specific verb ('Chunk') and resource ('document'), and the tool name distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools like rlm.docs.list or rlm.search.query.

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 does it mention preconditions or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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