read_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that all documents within the chapter are read in binder order, that titles can be included, and it warns about timeouts for large projects. This goes beyond the basic schema and provides useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a warning, and an Args/Returns breakdown. It is concise, with no redundant or filler content, and every sentence adds value.

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 description covers prerequisites (scan_project), performance guidance, parameter details, and return behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for effective 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, but the Args section provides thorough explanations for both parameters, including the type and default for include_titles and concrete path examples for chapter. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading a specific chapter or section of the manuscript, with details that it reads all documents in the folder in binder order. This distinguishes it from sibling read_document by scope, and the verb+resource structure is specific.

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 instructs to read one chapter at a time for large projects to avoid timeouts and directs users to run scan_project first to see available chapters. While it doesn't name an alternative for reading single documents, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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