read_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that execution happens in the user's Kuudo deployment rather than the local environment, that the return value is a string, and that binary content is base64-encoded. It does not describe error/not-found behavior or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear from the verb.

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 compact and front-loads the execution context before the core action. Each sentence carries useful information, though the opening 'Catalog entry.' is an opaque fragment that adds little for an agent.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, execution environment, and return encoding, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of being fully complete by omitting error behavior and not pointing to list_resources for URI discovery.

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?

The schema already documents the uri parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by distinguishing static URIs (exact URI) from templated URIs (parameters filled in), which is important for correct invocation.

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 action—'Read a resource by its URI'—and clarifies the resource type. It differentiates from resource-management siblings by focusing on reading a single resource, and it adds useful scope guidance for static versus templated URIs. The initial 'Catalog entry.' phrase is vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

It gives clear context about how to format the URI for static vs templated resources, telling an agent what value to provide. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_resources or how to discover resource URIs, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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