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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the returned contentHash should be passed back as baseContentHash when proposing an edit, which aids in concurrency detection. This goes beyond what annotations capture and helps an agent understand a non-obvious workflow. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded and a useful tip about the contentHash included as the second sentence. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return format (content + contentHash) and provides a usage hint for the hash. It does not explain error cases or explicitly mention the need for targetSpaceId, but the schema covers those details. The lack of explicit usage guidance is its main gap, but it is otherwise complete for the intended read operation.

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 100%, and each parameter (kind, nodeId, filePath, playbook, targetSpaceId) has a clear schema description. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema docs are complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not unduly compensate or introduce new meaning.

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 action ('Read one file') and the resource ('a Skill, Drive, or AirApp node'), which is specific enough for an agent to understand the primary function. It also adds the return value (content and contentHash) for extra clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby siblings like node_files_list or nodes_read_lines, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where this is the appropriate choice or where another sibling would be better, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., calling auth_verify). An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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