index_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the >60 KB outline downgrade, the override via full/with_hash, and the exact with_hash return shape {path, content, content_hash}. idempotentHint=false is unusual for a read but the description does not contradict it.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core purpose, but the telegraphic fragments ('Over 60 KB: outline, unless full or with_hash; outline: true forces it') are dense and slightly ambiguous to parse in one read. Nothing is wasted, but structure could be clearer.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. It covers the default read, the large-file fallback, and the with_hash variant, but leaves the outline's return format and the plain (non-hash) return shape implicit.

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 0% schema coverage the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: path defaults to root, with_hash alters the return contract, outline forces outline mode, and full overrides the size-based downgrade. Only 'full' is left to light inference from its name and the 'unless full' clause.

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 folder's index.md') and clarifies the root-default scope, which distinguishes it from the sibling index_patch and the broader concept/map readers. It's clear what is read, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read tools in the family.

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?

It hints at usage via the tie-in to index_patch ('with_hash ... if_match for index_patch') and the outline fallback, so an agent can infer when to ask for the hash. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement or exclusion guidance.

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