Read ACF sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely repeats that. It does add useful return-shape context (sections/entries carry line numbers), but says nothing about scoping, limits or how entries are delimited.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and immediately followed by the routing purpose and safety note. No wasted words.

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 read-only inspection tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape (sections/entries with line numbers) and intended workflow. Only finer output detail is absent, which is minor.

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 100%, so all four parameters (project, section, workspace, includeEntries) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'sections/entries' aligns with but does not extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the .acf as structured sections/entries with line numbers. That distinguishes it from the pin-oriented sibling acf_read_pins and from write tools like setacf_apply, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'Use to discover which section holds a setting before writing,' which positions it ahead of the setacf write tools. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming specific alternative readers.

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