Read Texel docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the return-format disclosure ('as markdown'), which is real behavioral context the annotations don't provide, though nothing is said about pagination or response size.

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?

Front-loaded verb and format, then a compact enumeration of valid pages, then the one actionable tip. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns (markdown), the full valid page set, and guidance on which page to read first. Nothing required 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an enum, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, glossing all six values (protocol, spec, art-guide, families, api, install). Some glosses are near-tautological ('spec (Skin spec reference)'), keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a documentation page') plus the return format ('as markdown'), which no sibling like texel_validate or texel_render shares. An agent can distinguish this from the other texel_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context by enumerating which topic each page covers and adds a sequencing directive ('Read "spec" before writing your first spec'). It does not name when NOT to use it or an alternative tool, but for a docs reader the context is clear enough.

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