wcps_get_chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval returning markdown. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid or unknown chapter names, nor any error handling or performance characteristics. For a simple getter, this 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 no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the source of valid parameter values is stated, and an example is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers what the tool does, how to identify a chapter, and gives an example. Minor omissions like invalid-name behavior are acceptable given the simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that 'name' refers to a chapter name from wcps_doc_chapters() and provides a concrete example ('switch-case'). This goes beyond the bare schema definition of 'name' as a string.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one full WCPS documentation chapter (markdown) by name.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by linking to wcps_doc_chapters() as the source of valid names, making its role clear relative to the chapter-listing sibling.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after listing available chapters via wcps_doc_chapters(), by providing a chapter name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to determine this is the retrieval counterpart to wcps_doc_chapters.

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