get_sarga

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the response content (Sanskrit plus available translations), which is useful, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for what could be a large chapter payload.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 read-only chapter fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally cover return shape or pagination. It hints at content (Sanskrit + translations) but leaves response structure and handling of large chapters unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents kanda, chapter, and langs with examples and defaults. The description's mention of 'available translations' loosely maps to the langs parameter but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('every verse of one sarga/chapter'), and the phrase 'every verse' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_verse (single verse). It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is for retrieving a whole chapter rather than a single verse or a search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to siblings like get_verse or search_verses.

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