read_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the mild signal that it surfaces "live" (current) schemas and reinforces no-write behavior; it discloses no permission needs, caching, or freshness guarantees beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the content enumeration. The trailing "No save changes" clause is slightly wasteful, restating something the readOnly annotation already conveys, but otherwise there is no padding.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description broadly conveys what comes back, but it omits how tool_name scopes the "tools" section and gives no hint about the shape or size of returned documentation. Adequate but with a clear gap on the second parameter.

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 0%, so the schema documents only types and the section enum. The four listed content categories map loosely onto the enum values (overview/workflows/packs/tools), which partially compensates, but the tool_name parameter is never mentioned and its relationship to section="tools" is left unexplained.

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 clear verb ("Read") and lists the specific resource categories it returns: operating skill/overview, workflows, pack format, and live tool schemas. This distinguishes it as the meta-documentation reader among gameplay siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to contrast against.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is referenced. "No save changes" is a safety aside, not usage direction, leaving the agent to infer when this meta tool should be called versus siblings like get_state or read_canon.

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