read_branches

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

The description 'Read branch data' gives no behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations, it fails to disclose that it is read-only, whether it reads all entries by default, or performance implications. Critical traits are omitted.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though could be slightly improved with structured formatting.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, data format, behavior for missing parameters, or edge cases, leaving substantial 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 high (83%) with descriptions for most parameters. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond those in the schema, so it provides marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'branch data', and specifies the context 'from a TTree or RNTuple'. It differentiates from sibling 'list_branches' which likely lists branches without reading data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'export_data' or 'get_branch_stats'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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