engi_doc_read

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive operation, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., permission needs, behavior on missing document, content format). Minimal value beyond the name.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, no waste. However, given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too concise to be adequately informative. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 4 parameters (one enum), no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks crucial context: what 'mode' does, what the return value looks like, error handling, and how it differs from sibling read-like tools (none exist directly but differentiation from create/patch is trivial). Incomplete for effective use.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'root' described). Description adds meaning for 'id' and 'path' (identifiers) but omits 'mode' entirely. The 'mode' enum with five options is unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about summary vs. full content, etc.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'managed Markdown document', with key identifiers 'ID or path'. Immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like engi_doc_create (create), engi_doc_patch_section (patch), and engi_frontmatter_patch (patch).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for reading documents by ID or path, but lacks context on choosing between ID and path or scenarios requiring different modes. No alternatives mentioned, though sibling names provide implicit direction.

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