Read an archived result

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 that the returned content is the complete untruncated original, but says nothing about expired/unknown ids, errors, or how the filtering parameters affect the response.

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 with no filler; the core action and the id provenance are both front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only retrieval tool with no output schema and mostly trivial parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and id source. It leaves minor gaps around parameter behavior and failure modes, but nothing blocking a correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: id and grep are documented in the schema, max_lines and start_line are not. The description only reinforces the id source ("from the notice") and implies the default is the full original, which loosely contrasts with the trimming params. It does not explain grep output format or how start_line/max_lines interact, so it barely exceeds the schema.

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?

"Read back the FULL original of a result that was shortened" names a specific verb (read back) and resource (the archived/shortened result), and the source of the id is stated. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (capability listing, calling, describing), which handle entirely different concerns.

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 specifies the trigger condition implicitly and explicitly: use this when a [tool-guardian: ...] shortening notice appeared, and take the id from that notice. There are no competing alternatives to exclude, so no when-not guidance is needed, but it stops short of saying what to do if no notice was seen.

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