read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses that the tool is a read operation returning text, total length, and continuation status. However, it does not mention prerequisites like permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 description is concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, followed by argument details, and ends with the return value description. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (body text, total length, continuation flag). It covers the main use case adequately. Minor gaps: no mention of handling invalid paths or error scenarios, but the description is sufficient for a simple read tool with good context signals.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'path' comes from search/list documents, 'offset' is for continuation reading, and 'max_chars' controls response size. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (read) and resource (document body as Markdown). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools list_documents and search_documents by specifying what this tool does (read content) as opposed to listing or searching.

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 description explains how to use arguments (path from search/list, offset for continuation, max_chars) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. The guidance is implicit through the context of sibling tools.

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