read_org_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: reading is confined to the default branch, no clone is required (implying a cheap, side-effect-free read), folders return listings, and a missing path yields suggested alternatives. It omits permissions/auth requirements and limits (binary or large files), keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameter semantics, then edge-case behavior. Every clause adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 read-only tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be spelled out), the description covers branch scope, directory-listing semantics, and miss behavior. The unmentioned 'org' parameter and absent auth/limit notes are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives strong meaning for 'repo' (org-local name or owner/name) and 'path' (in-repo path, folder or "" for root listing), but the third parameter 'org' is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' plus resource 'a file from an org repo's default branch', with scope clearly bounded (default branch only, no cloning). It also ties itself to a concrete sibling ('e.g. one find_similar returned'), so an agent can tell where the path argument typically comes from.

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?

Clear usage context: use this to inspect file contents without cloning, and paths typically come from find_similar results. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives (search_org, resolve_repo) or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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