get_document_chunks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of chunks with chunk_id, page number, and text summary. However, it does not mention potential performance implications, pagination, or behavior for invalid doc_ids.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, straightforward return), the description covers essential aspects. However, it could mention whether results are paginated or if errors occur for missing doc_ids, but it is still reasonably 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly defines the doc_id parameter as '文档的唯一标识符' (unique identifier of the document), adding semantic clarity beyond the schema's raw type declaration.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '指定文档的所有 chunks' (all chunks of a specific document), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chunk (single chunk) and get_document (document metadata).

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 explains that the tool is used with a doc_id to retrieve all text chunk summaries for a document. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context from sibling names implicitly clarifies usage boundaries.

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