read_chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about tailLength saving tokens and on-demand loading, but does not mention the behavior of returning all chapter titles when chapterIndex is omitted (which is only in the schema). This is a non-critical but unstated behavioral aspect.

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, dense sentence (with a clause) that front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains the key parameter's benefit. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not mention the return format for the case when chapterIndex is omitted (returning a list of titles). While this is described in the schema, the description alone might leave an agent unaware of that behavior, and it does not explain error scenarios or permissions. It is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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% for all three parameters, and the description adds meaning to tailLength by explaining its purpose (continuation and token savings). It does not add much on folder or chapterIndex beyond the schema, but the tailLength explanation goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 reads chapter content of a specified story, with the ability to load on demand by chapter index. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like write_chapter or scan_stories by explicitly focusing on read operation for chapter content.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (reading chapters, using tailLength for continuation) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for reading specific chapters, which is adequate given the sibling tools are clearly different actions.

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