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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it reads text files and identifies the specific artifact types available, but it does not describe error behavior, missing files, or authentication needs.

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 sentence: it states the action first, then enumerates supported files. The list is long but every item is relevant to the tool's scope.

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 low-complexity, read-only file retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description provides a complete catalog of readable design files. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by enumerating valid path values such as circuit.py, circuit.erc.json, and board_plan.json, which helps an agent know what can be requested.

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 and resource: reading a text file from a design. It enumerates the supported design artifacts, making the scope concrete, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_design or get_board_context.

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 lists what files can be read but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_design, get_board_context, or other retrieval tools. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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