fetch-chunk

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic fetch behavior without mentioning side effects, permissions, or error conditions. This is adequate for a simple read operation, but lacks depth such as what happens if the cache key is invalid or if chunks are missing.

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 sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and effective. No redundancy or filler.

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 fetch tool, the description covers the source (ask-rovodev) and purpose. It lacks mention of the relationship with 'next-chunk', but given the simplicity and good schema coverage, it is nearly complete. Minor gap: no error handling or precondition info.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose; no constraints, formatting, or usage tips are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetch a specific chunk'), the resource ('previously cached large response'), and the source ('from ask-rovodev'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'next-chunk' (which likely retrieves sequential chunks) and 'ask-rovodev' (which creates the cache).

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 states 'from a previously cached large response (from ask-rovodev)', implying it should be used after ask-rovodev, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'next-chunk' for sequential access. Some context is provided but lacks thorough guidance.

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