get_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, and the listing of content components gives a sense of the return payload. Still, it does not address error behavior, edge cases, or access constraints, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, with the core action and content in the first sentence and usage context in the second. Every part earns its place and there is no filler or redundant wording.

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 a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents and offers usage guidance. It could be slightly more explicit about when to prefer sibling tools, but the information necessary to call and interpret the result is present.

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 describes the sole parameter (chapter, 1–81) with 100% coverage. The description adds conversational context ('Tao Te Ching chapter') but no extra syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one Tao Te Ching chapter'), and enumerates the content components (Chinese text, Legge translation, line pairs). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_chapters or list_topics, which focus on discovery rather than full-chapter reading.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a user asks about a chapter or wants a source-aware reading.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_chapters for finding verses, so it stops short of a 5.

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