swg_read

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

The description claims a read-only operation, but annotations have readOnlyHint: false, indicating the tool may modify state. This is a direct contradiction, so score is reduced to 1 per rules.

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 well-structured with the main purpose first, then key details about return values, INVALID handling, and limitations. Each sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: return format, version usage, INVALID recovery, and limitations. It lacks explicit path format details but is otherwise complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 only parameter 'path' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds minimal context: it is a 'workspace text file path'. While sufficient for basic understanding, it lacks details like allowed formats or constraints.

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 the resource ('a workspace text file under coherence tracking'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the version return for swg_write_cas and the need for swg_reacquire when in INVALID state.

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 provides explicit usage context: it's for reading files under coherence tracking with version info for CAS. It also states when not to use it (SINGLE-HOST only, not for network mounts or multi-host scenarios) and points to swg_reacquire for recovery from INVALID state.

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