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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context about legacy dossiers, expertise not granting access, and separation of workspace administration from approval—information beyond what annotations supply.

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 concise—three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant contextual details, earning its sentences.

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 read-only tool with a single well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It explains exactly what is read and provides necessary domain context. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to cover return format.

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 the parameter 'projectId' is well-documented with a clear explanation (returned by list/create, never a local path). The description does not add any further parameter insight, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the 'current access mode, roles and exact revision' of a dossier, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools (e.g., read_dossier_workspace, read_dossier_references) by naming the specific aspects it covers.

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 implies when to use the tool (when access mode/roles/revision are needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides contextual nuance about legacy dossiers and expertise but no direct routing guidance.

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