read_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the file is "validated" (implying failure behavior for invalid Markdown) but says nothing about permissions, error conditions, or what happens when a requested section doesn't exist.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more. The undefined "#---" block syntax and "validated" behavior leave an agent unable to predict what the tool returns or how it fails.

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 0% for the single path parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by indicating the path can address a whole file or a specific #section/#--- block, but the exact syntax and whether the fragment is part of the same path string is left unclear.

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 (Markdown file), plus scopes to exact #section/#--- blocks, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_sections (which enumerates rather than reads). However, the cryptic "#---" notation and the meaning of "validated" are never explained, so some ambiguity remains.

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 guidance and no mention of the alternative list_sections. The only implicit signal is that reading differs from listing, which the agent must infer.

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