st.resource.read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' and gives examples, without describing what the read returns, whether it is purely read-only, whether special permissions are needed, or how errors are surfaced. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It opens with the verb and object, gives a concrete example pattern, and wastes no words.

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, the minimal description is understandable, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing about the return value and the full set of valid 'standard ST resource' URIs. The examples help but do not fully compensate for the missing context.

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 has a single required uri parameter with a pattern but no description, so schema coverage is low. The description adds meaning by framing the parameter as a 'standard ST resource' URI and providing examples, but it does not enumerate valid resource types or explain the URI structure beyond what the pattern already implies.

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 standard ST resource by URI') and gives concrete examples (st://characters, st://extensions), making the core purpose clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like st.source.read or various inspect tools.

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?

The description implies the tool is for reading resources addressed by st:// URIs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The URI examples provide only weak contextual signal rather than real routing guidance.

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