ghostrigger_read_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the return format (JSON string with content or error) and points to a knowledge base for deeper context. It is a read operation implied by the name and the description does not contradict that. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a read tool that's acceptable. It also indicates the need to know valid URIs.

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-organized with sections for examples, args, returns, and KB reference. It is somewhat verbose with the trailing example call using a placeholder 'Example' that could confuse, but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return format, and error handling. It also references a KB for more depth and a sibling for resource discovery. The only minor gap is the ambiguous example call at the end, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 schema provides only a string type with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the URI format, giving concrete examples, and instructing to use ghostrigger_list_resources to see all templates, which fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and valid values.

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 tool reads a kotor:// resource URI from GhostRigger, with specific examples of URI formats (2da, tlk, utc). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ghostrigger_list_resources by pointing to it for discovering templates, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises using ghostrigger_list_resources to see available templates, implying that this tool should be used after listing to fetch a specific resource. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the reference to the sibling provides adequate guidance for an agent to decide.

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