read_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a safe read with no side effects, which is reasonable but unstated explicitly; there is no mention of return format (markdown), document size, auth needs, or whether content is static. For a zero-parameter static-doc reader the risk is low, but the disclosure is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead, and the clarifying parenthetical follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must signal the return value; 'rules, tiers, quick decisions' does sketch the content of AGENTS.md. Combined with a trivial empty schema, this is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it, though format and size remain unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema confirms an empty object, consistent with the description's lack of parameter discussion.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus a named resource (AGENTS.md) with a parenthetical that describes its role as an entry point for AI coding agents. An agent can distinguish it from read_llm_txt/read_readme by content, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

'Entry point for AI coding agents' implies this should be read first, giving implied usage context. However, there's no explicit statement of when to use this over read_llm_txt, read_three_tiers, or read_readme, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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