Zotero Chunk RAG

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read operation ('Expand context'), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if inputs are invalid. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's minimal given the lack of structured data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling or output format hints), though the output schema mitigates some of this need.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'doc_id: Document ID from search results,' 'chunk_index: Chunk index from search results,' and 'window: Chunks before/after to include (1-5).' This clarifies the purpose and constraints of all parameters, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Expand context around a specific passage.' This specifies the verb ('Expand context') and resource ('a specific passage'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'search_topic' beyond mentioning it should be used 'after search_papers.'

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: 'Use after search_papers to get more context.' This gives a specific sequence and purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_topic' or 'get_index_stats,' which could help further distinguish its role.

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