rag_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The wording '取' and the retrieval context imply a read-only operation, and the description says the result is adjacent chunks for viewing context, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or output shape.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and context are front-loaded, followed by the id provenance note.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the operation, its purpose, and where the id comes from. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit behavioral details such as read-only confirmation or error behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both id and span, including span's default of 1 and maximum of 5. The description adds that id comes from rag_search's return, which is helpful provenance, but otherwise relies on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 states a specific action: retrieve adjacent chunks before and after a given retrieval result, in order to view fuller context. It also establishes the relationship to rag_search by saying the id comes from rag_search's return, which helps distinguish this tool from its siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast use cases.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: to view the complete context around a search result. It also says where the required id comes from, which is a useful prerequisite. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied rag_search dependency.

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