papertrail_for_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tracker items are cached (implying potential staleness), which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or describe output format/pagination.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core concept ('why behind a chunk') and then specifies the exact contents returned. No filler or 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?

The description adequately conveys the tool's main output but omits usage context, alternative tool differentiation, and parameter nuances (e.g., worktree behavior). Without an output schema, more detail on return structure would be valuable.

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 only 33% (only worktree has an inline description). The tool description adds no details for chunk_id or limit, so the agent must rely on parameter names and defaults. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage.

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 returns a chunk's current text plus cached tracker items and review comments referencing it. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling papertrail tools like papertrail_for_symbol or papertrail_for_commit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as papertrail_refs_for_path or papertrail_for_symbol. The description only defines what the tool does, not the appropriate usage context or exclusions.

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