list_chunks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it returns specific fields, that it is lightweight (no full texts), and warns about addressing scope. It doesn't explicitly state read-only or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied by 'list'. It adds good behavioral context beyond a simple verb.

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 block but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing parameters and output. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes—no filler. The addressing warning is critical and 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?

For a listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, output fields, and critical usage constraints. It doesn't explain the output format (handled by schema) or mention pagination, but it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains book_id (required, scopes the list), status (enum-like options: all/untranslated/translated/misaligned), and keyword (fuzzy-match on original or translation). It also clarifies the meaning of returned fields like ui_row and chunk_id, adding value well beyond the bare 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 function: a lightweight list of chunk ids for one book, with status, without full texts. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_book_info and get_translation by focusing on chunk listing and the UI mirror.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: how to filter by status, how keyword matches, and critical addressing rules (use book_id + chunk_id, never ui_row, do not carry chunk_id across books). It also implies when to use this (for overview) versus other tools for full content or mutations.

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