resource_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by listing the artifact types that can be read, but it does not disclose return format, error cases, or auth requirements. It does not contradict the 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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It contains no redundant words and is perfectly front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with good annotation coverage, so the description does not need to explain safety. However, it lacks any mention of output structure or usage context, and the overlap with command_preview is not addressed. It is adequate for a minimal read tool but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (project_path and uri) with no descriptions, and the tool description also does not explain their semantics. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the meaning of 'uri' and its relationship to 'project_path' ambiguous beyond the parameter names.

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') and enumerates the types of resources it applies to ('project change-set, preview, thumbnail, or content-addressed artifact'), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like command_preview, which also deals with 'preview', so it stops short of full distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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