read_shader

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read the contents', which implies a safe, read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, or any side effects. The lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence of 7 words, which is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is overly brief and could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., string of GLSL code) but does not. It is incomplete for a simple tool with one parameter; the agent has no knowledge of what 'contents' entails or any constraints on the path.

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% with the single parameter 'path' described as 'Shader file path'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool reads the contents of a shader file. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('read' + 'shader file') and distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'create_shader', 'delete_shader', 'list_shaders', and 'read_resource'.

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 or when-not guidance is provided. It implicitly suggests usage for obtaining shader file contents, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions despite having closely related sibling tools like 'list_shaders' and 'read_resource'.

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