read_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read the full contents' communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and that the entire document is returned, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid paths, permissions, or potential truncation. It adds some specificity needed beyond the name but leaves behavioral edge cases unaddressed.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, then scopes the input. No redundant words, no restating the tool name. Every element earns its place.

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 single- parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the agent gets back ('full contents') and indicates the input format comes from search_docs. It does not cover error cases or whether the doc must exist, but those are mitigagated by the implied search-first flow and the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully describes the 'path' parameter (relative path, example), and the description reiterates it. Schema description coverage is 100%, so no additional param insight is required; the description adds marginal contextual value by tying the path to search_docs results.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('specific markdown doc') and specifies the input ('relative path'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_docs' by stating the path comes from that tool, so the agent knows this is the retrieval step, not the search step.

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 phrase 'as returned by search_docs' implies the workflow: search first, then read by path. This gives context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of search_docs when you already have a path' or provide exclusion conditions.

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