preview_knowledge_base_chunks

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates it's a preview (non-destructive, read-only), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as resource consumption, rate limits, or whether the tool actually processes the file (which could be expensive). Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and essential inputs. Every sentence is necessary and there is no fluff.

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 lacks details about return values (no output schema), error handling, or prerequisites like supported file types. Given the tool's complexity (previewing chunks) and missing annotations, the description could be more complete to inform the agent about expected outcomes.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds 'Provide base64 file content, filename, and optional chunking params', which aligns with the schema but does not elaborate on 'optional chunking params' (e.g., chunk size, overlap). Minimal added value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: previewing how a file would be chunked for knowledge base ingestion. It uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('how a file would be chunked'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ingest_knowledge_base' or 'upload_knowledge_base' which perform actual ingestion.

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 usage for testing chunking before actual ingestion ('Preview'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Clear context is given, but no 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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