read_tool_published

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

Describes read-only behavior (LIVE published version) and absence of destructive effects. With no annotations, it adequately discloses the operation type.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence front-loaded with core purpose; second adds valuable use case. No redundant words.

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?

Covers essential information: what it reads (published version), use case (diffing). Lacks return format details but sufficient for a simple read tool with one parameter.

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?

Single parameter 'id' already fully described in schema. Description adds no extra parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it reads the live published version of a tool, distinguishing it from the draft version returned by read_tool. Verb 'Read' and resource 'LIVE published version' are specific.

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?

Directly contrasts with read_tool (draft) and suggests using it to compare with draft via diffing. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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