Call Read Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so "no side effects" is largely a restatement of structured data. The description adds no context about error handling for bad operation names, how arguments are validated, or what a dynamic dispatch failure looks like — modest value beyond the 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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key scoping fact (read-only) is front-loaded. Brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than excess, so it is efficient but thin.

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 generic dispatcher that can invoke any read operation with arbitrary arguments, the description should explain the lookup-then-call workflow and failure modes. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the dispatch mechanics — the core of this tool — are left undocumented.

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 coverage is 100%, with `name` documented as "Operation name from search_tools" and `arguments` as "Arguments matching the schema." The description's "by name" adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is appropriate.

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?

"Run a read operation ... by name" states a specific verb (run) and resource (read operation), and the "no side effects" qualifier implicitly separates it from call_write_tool and call_destructive_tool. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring it from the word "read".

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over execute_code, nor that a name must first be obtained via search_tools (that prerequisite lives only in the schema). The agent must infer the dispatcher workflow entirely from sibling names.

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