get_chunk

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it auto-loads the diff file if not loaded and that it provides manageable portions. It correctly notes the absolute path requirement. No contradictions.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, critical requirement, behavioral note, and progress tracking advice. Well-structured but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, critical requirements (absolute path), behavioral traits (auto-loading, manageable portions), and guidance for comprehensive analysis. No gaps identified.

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 each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds the critical constraint that 'absolute_file_path' must be an absolute path, which is not in the schema. It also implies chunk_number is 1-indexed. Adds meaningful 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 retrieves content of a specific chunk from a diff file. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it is for individual chunks identified via list_chunks or find_chunks_for_files, and explicitly warns against reading diff files directly.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use scenarios: systematic chunk-by-chunk analysis or examining specific chunks. Includes a critical note about absolute paths and a 'DO NOT' instruction for reading diff files directly. Slightly less explicit about alternatives but gives good context.

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