get_passage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Retrieve' and indicates exactness, but it does not describe what happens when a passage is not found, whether page or chunk_id is the lookup key, or what the response structure will be. These gaps limit an agent's ability to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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, unambiguous sentence with no padding. Every word contributes meaning and the key information is placed at the start.

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 there are 3 params, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling disambiguation, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke this tool confidently. It does not explain which combination of page, citekey, and chunk_id forms a valid call, nor what the passage retrieval semantics are. The missing guidance matters because the schema marks all params as optional.

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 three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'citekey' and 'page metadata,' but it does not clearly map these to the page, citekey, or chunk_id schema fields, and it never addresses chunk_id. The agent still has to guess how parameters act together.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('exact indexed passage') with the metadata that is included ('citekey and page'), so an agent can tell it is a deterministic lookup rather than a general search. It doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_document or get_page_image, but the focus on an indexed passage is enough to distinguish it broadly.

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 words 'exact' and 'indexed' imply it should be used when a specific known identifier exists, suggesting a use case: retrieve an already-indexed passage rather than searching. However, it does not explicitly say when this tool should be chosen over search_library, get_document, or get_page_image, nor does it name any alternative.

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