zap_report_read_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: page ordering, termination signal (endOfFile), integrity verification (expectedSha256 rejects a changed report), code-point counting semantics, and a 50 MiB artifact limit. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from the schema alone.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the calling protocol, then units and limits. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact; nothing is filler or restated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately surfaces the return-side fields an agent must act on (nextOffset, endOfFile, artifactSha256) alongside the pagination and integrity rules. Complete for a chunked-read tool with four parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond it: it clarifies that offset/maxChars count Unicode code points (not bytes), explains the artifactSha256-to-expectedSha256 handshake across pages, and notes the SHA-256 identifies the full original file rather than the page.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a generated UTF-8 report) and immediately qualifies the mode as 'bounded JSON pages', which distinguishes it from the sibling zap_report_read without needing to name it. An agent can tell this is the paged/chunked reader rather than a one-shot fetch.

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?

Gives explicit procedural context: append pages in order, follow nextOffset until endOfFile=true, and pass the first page's artifactSha256 as expectedSha256 on later calls. It does not name zap_report_read as the non-paged alternative or state when-not to use chunking (e.g. small reports), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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