get_multiple_excerpts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral details such as 'bounded' (limiting excerpt length) and 'requested chunk_id order' (respecting order), which are useful but not exhaustive. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It includes the essential purpose and constraints without extra fluff, making it efficiently structured.

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 is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool, covering the main functionality and constraints. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or error handling, but given the simplicity and presence of sibling tools, it is adequately complete.

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 descriptions cover most parameters (though per_item_chars lacks a description), and the tool description references chunk_id order, which aids understanding. However, the description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter description, and parameter semantics could be clearer.

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 function: returning one to five bounded evidence excerpts in a specified order, and it differentiates from the singular get_excerpt by indicating multiple excerpts. The constraint about IDs belonging to a selected document and snapshot adds clear specificity.

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 implies usage for multiple excerpts but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_excerpt or search_documents. It lacks explicit guidance on conditions or scenarios, leaving some inference to the agent.

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