read_chapter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that content is automatically truncated to fit context limits, which is a distinct behavioral trait and useful warning. It does not disclose whether truncation affects the output format or whether the full content is unavailable due to truncation, leaving some ambiguity about result completeness.

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 sentences, both purposeful: the first states the action and source, the second warns about context truncation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 reading a chapter, it explains the truncation behavior and source of indices, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. It does not mention the return format or how truncation manifests in the output, and with no output schema the description could have added a bit more on what the agent should expect back. Still, the tool is narrow in scope and the essentials are covered.

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 already has 100% coverage on parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond referencing list_chapters and the level-matching constraint, which is already in the schema. That connection is valuable but does not dramatically elevate semantic clarity beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it reads text content of a specific chapter by index, with the source from list_chapters. The verb 'read' and resource 'chapter' distinguish it from siblings like get_pdf_info or read_pages, and the reference to list_chapters anchors its use.

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?

Confirms the chapter_index comes from list_chapters and that the level must match the level used in list_chapters, which guides correct invocation. It does not explicitly list when not to use it versus read_pages or when to prefer alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling set.

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