smry Public Reader

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: it returns clean text with stable paragraph citations and limits support to articles, PDFs, and certain YouTube URLs.

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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose and key output characteristics without 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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: URL requirements, supported source types, and output nature. Minor ambiguity remains around what counts as a 'supported' YouTube URL and possible failure behavior, but these are not critical gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that the URL must be exact and public, but it does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('exact public article, PDF, or supported YouTube URL'), and the output form ('clean source text with stable paragraph citations'). It is unambiguous and would not be confused with a search or listing tool.

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 clearly implies this tool is for reading an exact, public, supported URL rather than discovering or searching sources. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or describe alternatives, but with no sibling tools present the context is still clear.

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