get_chunk

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no error behavior for unknown ids, no partial-failure notes, and its return-value sentence duplicates the output schema that already exists.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is arguably redundant against the output schema, but nothing is verbose or buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with an existing output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential contract. The remaining gap is relational: what a chunk is and how it differs from get_chunk_context.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the load. "By its id" does establish that chunk_id is the lookup key, but it gives no format, origin, or example of a valid chunk id, leaving the core input under-specified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a single chunk by its id") and states the return content, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_chunk_context, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_chunk_context, search, or deep_search, and no prerequisites or context about where chunk ids originate. The agent gets a definition but no routing rule.

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