Read an iWork file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine operational constraint not present in annotations: .pages requires the Pages app and a GUI session. It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it does, the GUI prerequisite, when to use it, and the two alternatives). No filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, everything an agent needs is present: purpose, prerequisite for .pages, and explicit routing to sibling tools for formatting or metadata needs.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema with absolute/~ syntax. The description adds no path-format guidance beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (.numbers/.key/.pages file) plus the output form (JSON). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that also touch iWork files, so an agent can separate it from iwork_metadata and the inspect_format tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the positive case ('see a file's content before editing it'), the negative case ('Not for formatting details'), and names the exact alternatives (numbers_inspect_format, keynote_inspect_style) plus a cheaper option for a narrower need (iwork_metadata). Routing is unambiguous.

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