reading_list_chunks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are ordered by reading order, but it does not disclose things like pagination, return format, or whether chunk content is included.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it names the action, the target, the scope, and the ordering in minimal space.

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 simple one-parameter list operation with readOnlyHint=true and no output schema, this description gives enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly richer by indicating what each listed chunk contains, but the core calling context is complete.

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 for the undocumented bookId parameter. It only says 'for a book', which merely restates that bookId identifies a book and adds no new detail about how to obtain, format, or validate the ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chunks') plus an explicit scope ('for a book') and ordering ('in reading order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reading_read_chunk and reading_search_chunks, which have different purposes.

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 that this tool is for enumerating a book's chunks in order, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over reading_search_chunks or reading_read_chunk. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage to inference.

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