Get RAG Document Content

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that content is chunk-based and scoped to one source, but it does not clarify behavior around the limit parameter (e.g., truncation, pagination, or the exact return shape), which would add value beyond the schema and 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with complete parameter documentation and safety annotations, this description is largely sufficient. It could specify the return structure or pagination semantics in more detail, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness make this a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing that the result is stored content chunks; it does not compensate for or improve upon the schema.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: 'full stored content (chunks) of a single document source in a knowledge base.' It is unambiguous and distinct from adjacent knowledge-base operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool such as lyzr_kb_list_documents or lyzr_kb_query.

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 intended use case (retrieving full chunk content for one exact document source) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternatives nor states exclusions, so the usage context is only implied by the wording.

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