atr_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — results are compressed and large ones are stashed — but leaves the critical follow-up unexplained: how or where an agent retrieves a stashed result.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler, and the read-only constraint plus the atr_find_tools pointer come first. It is arguably over-terse given the tool's dispatch complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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 a nested 'arguments' object, a low parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description carries most of the burden and falls short. It never explains how arguments are forwarded, what the compressed result looks like, or how to unpack a stashed result, all of which an agent needs to use this dispatch tool correctly.

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 33%: only 'budget' is documented. The description adds no meaning for 'tool' (presumably a tool name from atr_find_tools) or for the nested 'arguments' object, which is almost certainly a pass-through payload to the target tool — a semantics gap with real invocation consequences.

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: it runs a read-only tool (marked [r] in atr_find_tools), returning compressed results. This distinguishes it from atr_find_tools, but it never contrasts itself with atr_call, atr_query, or other siblings that an agent might pick instead.

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 parenthetical '([r] in atr_find_tools)' implies a discover-then-read workflow, but the description never states when to use atr_read versus atr_call (presumably for write tools) or atr_query. Usage is inferable from the sibling naming convention rather than stated.

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