Read a report source file

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral detail that reading returns a SHA-256 precondition rather than just file contents, which is useful context 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the core action and outcome are immediately understandable.

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 read tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description provides the essential context. It does not explicitly state when to call it relative to write_report_file, but that is reasonably inferable from 'safe write.'

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 only 50%: session_id has a description, but path is just a string with minLength. The description does not clarify either parameter or their relationship, so path semantics remain largely undocumented beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('report source file'), and specifies a distinctive outcome ('return the SHA-256 precondition required for a safe write'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_report_files and write_report_file.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before a safe write, to obtain the required SHA-256 precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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