concept_read

Does 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 genuine behavior beyond that: the exact return shape, that with_content returns exact bytes rather than parsed body, that outline yields only headings, and that match greps body lines with context. It omits not-found/error behavior and the interaction with the 60KB auto-outline rule (left to schema), keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose and return payload are front-loaded, and the semicolon-separated clause per mode is dense and earns its space. It is telegraphic to the point of slight terseness, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape and the non-obvious mode flags an agent must set, which is exactly what the schema cannot convey. Return values need no separate explanation, and nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 63% schema coverage, the description meaningfully supplements the schema by explaining semantics for with_content (bytes vs body), section (single section), outline (headings only), and match/context (grep body lines with surrounding context). It does not clarify rev/full, but those are already documented in-prop, so this compensates well above the baseline.

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 and resource ('Reads a concept') and enumerates the return payload (content_hash, frontmatter parsed/_raw, body). This distinguishes it from concept_list (enumeration), concept_history (versions), and concept_expand (expansion), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 mode flags (with_content, section, outline, match) imply when each retrieval variant applies, giving useful implied usage. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over concept_expand, concept_history, or concept_list, nor any prerequisites such as needed permissions.

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