read_mcdev_project_config

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the file being read and an important safety boundary ('never reads `.mcdev-auth.json`'), but it omits error behavior if the file is missing, whether the read is purely side-effect-free, and what the tool returns beyond a vague mention of inspecting markets and marketList.

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?

The description is two well-formed sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concise usage note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the file, an exclusion, and a primary use case. It could be stronger by briefly stating the return shape or error behavior, but no major element needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single parameter `workspaceRoot`, and the schema already defines it as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read `.mcdevrc.json` from a workspace path'. It also distinguishes the target from a related file by noting it 'never reads `.mcdev-auth.json`'. However, it does not differentiate its purpose from any of the listed sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives one intended use: 'Use to inspect markets and marketList with the assistant.' This implies when the tool is useful but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as mcdev_explain_config_key.

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