Get ONES Document Chunks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool returns a chunk (not full document) and uses cursor pagination and a character budget, which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe error handling, rate limits, or what happens on invalid refs.

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, well-formed sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 existence of an output schema (so return values are documented separately), and the annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential usage concept. It mentions cursor and character budget, which are key. However, it could briefly note pagination behavior (e.g., 'use cursor to get next chunk').

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 compensate. It implies the role of 'ref', 'cursor', and 'max_chars' (character budget), but it does not explain 'include_resources'. This leaves 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 specifies the verb 'Return', the resource 'one cursor-based chunk from a ONES doc ref', and the mechanism 'using a character budget'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_doc (full document) and get_doc_section (single section) by focusing on chunked retrieval.

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools or scenarios where this tool should be preferred over alternatives like get_doc or get_doc_context.

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