reading_list_chunks

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool lists chunks 'in reading order,' which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like return format, pagination, or potential rate limits, which would add value beyond 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 superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could include brief context on what a 'chunk' is, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema, readOnly), the description provides a minimal but functional explanation. It lacks details on the return structure or paging, which for a listing operation might be expected. However, it is not critically incomplete for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a book' relating to the bookId parameter but provides no format, examples, or validation constraints. The parameter's meaning is implied but not explicitly explained.

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 lists chunks for a book in reading order, specifying the action (list), resource (chunks), and scope (for a book, in reading order). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like reading_read_chunk (which reads a single chunk) and reading_search_chunks (which searches).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It implies usage for listing chunks in reading order but lacks guidance on scenarios where other list tools (e.g., reading_search_chunks) would be more appropriate.

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