Get chunk

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the content format (Markdown/PDF). However, it does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or how output_dir affects the result. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information; every word contributes to clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or saves. It mentions output_dir but not its role (save content vs. specify path). Missing error context and relationship to other tools. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 50% (output_dir documented in schema). The tool description adds 'numeric id' for chunk_id, partially compensating for its missing schema description. Additional parameter details beyond the schema are minimal.

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 'Read chunk content by numeric id', specifying the verb (Read) and resource (chunk content). It also adds the content type distinction ('Markdown or extracted PDF text'), which helps differentiate from sibling 'get' tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_boundary_context or get_chunk_analysis_context. The description lacks explicit alternatives or usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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