get_chunk_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that neighbors come from the same file, but says nothing about behavior when a chunk_id is missing/at a file boundary, any cap on neighbor counts, or cost/latency characteristics.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the rationale.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover read-only safety. The remaining gap is the undocumented neighbor-count parameters, which is minor but real for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It implies before/after expansion, which loosely maps to before_chunks/after_chunks, but never explains their meaning, defaults (1), or upper bounds, and adds nothing for chunk_id's format.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('contextual neighbor chunks surrounding a chunk_id from the same file'), and scopes it to a single file. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_chunk, though it never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

'Expands awareness of the document before and after a search hit' implies the usage context (following up on a search result), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of get_chunk as the alternative for the single chunk, and no prerequisites.

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