read_equations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Return' and the file-resolution explanation make the read-only nature evident, and it explains the multi-file lookup behavior. However, it says nothing about failure modes (missing model, invalid file name) or any access constraints, so a middle score is warranted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by the conditional multi-file case. The parenthetical detailing EQUATION(...) blocks earns its space by telling the agent what the returned text actually looks like. Slightly long second sentence but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the main invocation path (model, plus file for multi-file models) is fully covered. The one gap is the `group` parameter, which is never mentioned and has 0% schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess at its role.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters. It adds real meaning for `file` (accepted extensions .cpp/.h/.hpp, no path allowed), which the schema does not convey. But `group` (default 'models') and `model` are left entirely undocumented, so it only compensates for a third of the parameters.

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 ('Return the text of the model's equation file') and pins down exactly what kind of content comes back (the C++ source with EQUATION(...) blocks). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_models, write_equations, and read_results.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: multi-file models list their equations as source_files in list_models, and those plain file names should be passed as `file`. That is a concrete when-to-use rule tied to a sibling tool's output, though the read-vs-write relationship with write_equations is only implied by the name.

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