Read generated file content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe read operation. Description adds that the tool returns content, diff, and SHA, and notes omitting path lists existing paths. Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but annotations reduce burden.

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 sentences: first states what the tool returns (content, diff, SHA), second gives explicit usage guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given only 2 parameters (one optional), read-only, idempotent, and no output schema, the description is complete. Covers purpose, what is returned, and usage instructions. No missing critical details for the tool's simple function.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the path parameter's format (e.g., 'models/staging/stg_encounters.sql') and the optional behavior (omit to list paths). This clarifies usage beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states it returns exact content, unified diff, and SHA-256 of a generated candidate file. Specifies use case: showing a reviewer the change. Distinguishes from sibling tools like praxis_get_run (lists artifacts) and praxis_prepare_remediation (generates).

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool 'to show a reviewer the change rather than describing it.' Implicitly contrasts with other tools but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools. Guidance is clear for primary use case.

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