Read a hosted Avalanche MCP index resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format ('markdown link lists') and a freshness guarantee ('always current'). It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations, this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action, enumerates the exact valid inputs, and states the output format and freshness—all with zero filler. Every clause carries useful information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 a single enum parameter, strong read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (markdown link lists of every page), the valid inputs, and the freshness guarantee. There are no gaps in the required knowledge to call this tool 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 input schema has one parameter with an enum but zero description coverage. The description compensates by listing all allowed URI values and explaining what they represent (index resources that are markdown link lists). While it does not describe each URI individually, the names are self-explanatory (docs, academy, etc.) and the description clarifies the nature of the returned data. This adds meaning beyond the bare enum, even though schema coverage is 0%.

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 verb ('Read') and the resource ('one of the hosted MCP's index resources'), enumerates all seven valid URIs, and describes the output as 'markdown link lists of every page, always current.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like avax_get_doc by specifying it returns a link list rather than a document. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 when to use the tool (when a full index of pages is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not contrast with sibling tools like avax_get_doc or avax_search_docs, leaving the agent to infer that this is for list navigation rather than specific content retrieval. The 'always current' phrase hints at a freshness benefit, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance.

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