Read a non-Markdown asset by concept ID and path to get content, encoding, size, SHA-256 for change/delete checks, and executable mode.
Reads a non-Markdown asset of an expanded concept: content, encoding, sha256 (the if_match to change or delete it), size, executable mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| encoding | No | ||
| concept_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields and specifically that the sha256 serves as 'the if_match to change or delete it' — linking a read to write/delete concurrency control, which is not derivable from schema or 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The colon-delimited field list is dense but readable, and the primary action leads.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and the sha256 token role. However, for a three-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage it omits input-parameter semantics and any usage routing, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, yet it clarifies neither path vs concept_id nor the text/base64 meaning of the encoding enum (encoding appears only as a returned field, not as input semantics). This leaves all three parameters effectively undocumented.
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?
Specifies a clear verb and resource ('Reads a non-Markdown asset of an expanded concept') and even enumerates the fields returned (content, encoding, sha256, size, mode). The 'non-Markdown' qualifier implicitly scopes it away from concept/artifact reads, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferential.
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 'of an expanded concept' hints at a prerequisite but never states when to choose this over asset_list, concept_read, or artifact_read. There are no when/when-not statements and no alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.