get_preact_readme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a read (implied by 'Get') and returns README content, but doesn't cover output format, size, rate limits, or any authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple read, but no extra behavioral context.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words. Could be improved by adding sibling differentiation, but as is, it's concise.

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 read tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description should explain return value (e.g., raw text) and usage context relative to siblings. It's minimally complete but lacks differentiation from query_preact_docs.

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 100%, and the single parameter is a well-documented enum with a clear description. The tool description adds no information beyond the schema about parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: fetching README content from a Preact repository. It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like query_preact_docs which likely returns documentation content, creating potential ambiguity about when to use README fetch vs. doc query.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus query_preact_docs or list_preact_repositories. The description implies it fetches README for a single repository, but doesn't state when that's preferable to searching docs.

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