brain_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of reading exactly one file and the relative-path constraint, but provides no details on error behavior or return format. These additions are consistent with annotations but minimal.

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 sentence with action front-loaded, a precise resource, and a helpful example. No filler or redundancy; every part earns its place.

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 a tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering side effects, the description is complete. The example and relative-path wording give the agent everything needed to call it correctly, and sibling tools provide surrounding context.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'path' as a relative path, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by giving a concrete example (decisions/2026-03-change-orders.md), which clarifies the expected format and nested structure.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('one file from the brain') and a method ('by relative path') plus a concrete example. This distinguishes it naturally from siblings brain_list and brain_search without ambiguity.

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 implies usage—when you need the contents of a specific file by path—but does not explicitly contrast with brain_list or brain_search, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough but exclusions/alternatives are left to inference.

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