get_chapter_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry safety and behavior information. It transparently indicates a read-only operation by saying 'Return the markdown' and reveals the file-based source. It does not cover edge cases like missing chapters or auth requirements, but for a simple getter the core behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and includes no filler. The inline code formatting for the file path is compact and relevant. It is an example of appropriately concise writing, even if terse.

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 two simple string parameters and an output schema, the description is close to adequate but still leaves the meaning and format of `slug` and `chapter` underspecified. It also provides no guidance on error behavior or how to discover valid chapter identifiers. The existence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return values.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that `chapter` becomes a path component and that the tool targets 'one book,' implicitly tying `slug` to the book, but it never defines `slug` explicitly or provides the expected `chapter` format. This leaves the agent guessing about valid values.

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 identifies the exact resource: the markdown for `chapter-summaries/<chapter>.md` scoped to one book. This makes it distinct from the sibling tools, which cover book search, metadata, action items, notes, and infographics. The only slight weakness is the internal file-path phrasing rather than a plainer statement of 'chapter summary content.'

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs a specific chapter's markdown summary for a particular book. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_books, get_book_metadata, or get_action_items, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. Guidance is therefore present only by inference.

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