preview_chunks

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden. It implies no embeddings and inline processing, but does not explicitly state that no data is persisted or that the operation is idempotent. The output schema exists but behavioral side effects are not addressed.

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 sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices useful details that could be added without becoming verbose, such as examples or config structure.

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?

Given three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and a sibling set, the description is insufficient. While the output schema covers return values, the lack of parameter guidance and usage context makes it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%. The description only hints that 'strategy_name' selects a strategy and 'config' holds parameters, but does not explain the format or constraints for 'config' (anyOf object/null). No enum values or examples are provided.

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 action ('chunk'), the resource ('inline text'), and includes a distinguishing detail ('no embeddings'). However, it could better differentiate from sibling tool 'evaluate_chunking' which likely involves evaluation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'evaluate_chunking', 'list_strategies', or 'recommend_config'. The description does not specify prerequisites or contexts.

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