Get ONES Document Chunks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'cursor-based' and 'character budget' but does not disclose potential behaviors like error handling, performance implications, or relationship to other get_doc tools. Adequate but not enhanced.

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 that front-loads key information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, with no wasted verbiage.

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 the complexity of cursor-based pagination and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the lack of parameter explanation and usage context makes it only moderately complete. It meets baseline but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains 'ref' implicitly and 'max_chars' through 'character budget', but does not clarify 'cursor' (e.g., initial value, how to obtain) or 'include_resources'. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 returns a cursor-based chunk from a ONES doc ref using a character budget, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_doc, get_doc_section, etc. by its chunking and cursor mechanism.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the name and context, making selection less reliable.

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