read_canon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload includes a hash and line citation, which is genuinely useful return context, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or what a 'canon chunk' comprises.

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 zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the return detail is appended compactly.

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 rich annotations, the essentials are mostly covered, but two undocumented required parameters and no clarification of what a canon chunk is or how lookup failures surface leave gaps. No output schema exists, so the brief mention of hash/line citation is a helpful but thin substitute.

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?

Two required string parameters (campaign_id, chunk_id) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden - and it names neither parameter. It never explains that chunk_id is the exact identifier to read or that campaign_id scopes the lookup.

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 (read) and resource (canon chunk), and adds that the result includes a hash/line citation. The word 'exact' implicitly contrasts with search_canon, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_canon or read_history, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing chunk_id from a prior search). The only signal is the adjective 'exact', which hints at direct-ID lookup but is never spelled out.

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