Inspect original CONSTANT/PARAM declarations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral value by saying it reports writable and ambiguous/unsupported legacy forms, telling the agent what the result distinguishes. It omits pagination/budget behavior despite limit/offset/childLimit parameters.

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 primary action and resource. The final sentence earns its place by disambiguating from generic instance parameter assignments rather than padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the output classifies (writable vs ambiguous/unsupported legacy forms) and the scope of the declarations. Nothing critical is missing, though pagination/budget semantics for the four paging parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 seven parameters (path, limit, offset, project, workspace, childLimit, childOffset) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('native CONSTANT h/51/52 and PARAM h/53/54 declaration pairs'), and explicitly excludes a confusable concept ('not generic instance parameter assignments'). It implicitly distinguishes from the gdf_declarations_edit sibling via the read verb, but never names the edit tool as the write counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read existing' plus the clarification that these are source declarations/defaults rather than instance parameter assignments, which is a soft when-not signal. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus gdf_declarations_edit or gdf_inspect.

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