get_chunk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that root, policy, and index validation occur before returning, which is useful, but it does not state what happens on validation failure, whether the operation has side effects, or any error semantics. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that front-loads the core action and result. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits parameter semantics, failure behavior, and usage context. While an output schema exists, the agent still lacks critical information about how to invoke the tool correctly and what happens under invalid conditions. The description is not complete enough for reliable autonomous use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention chunk_id or bundle at all. It only says 'chunk,' which does not clarify parameter meaning, optionality, or how bundle affects behavior. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('one cited chunk'), and adds validation context ('after root, policy, and index validation'). This clearly identifies the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like search_chunks or get_diagnostics.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a single validated chunk, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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