Fetch module document

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations, it discloses the error behavior for unknown IDs (returns the requested value plus repair guidance), that metadata is resolved from a single local file, that the contract is not evaluated, and that there is no auth, network, rate limit, or write side effect. This is substantive behavior an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then ID semantics, then behavior; every sentence carries information. Minor overlap between the trailing 'no auth, network, rate limits, or writes' and the existing annotations, but not wasteful enough to penalize more.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still clarifies what comes back (full file plus resolved metadata) and what is deliberately not done (contract evaluation). For a single-required-param read tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the ID is a declared machine-contract/heading ID (M90) or a qualified ID (通用:M10) as returned by registry_search, explicitly not the filename, and matching is case-sensitive. It complements rather than repeats 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?

Names a specific verb (read), a specific resource (one NF module's full Markdown by ID), and the extra artifact returned (raw machine-contract block). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from pipeline_read and asset_read, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives the positive trigger (after registry_search resolves a module, or enumerate IDs via registry_search with an empty query) and the negative trigger (not for pipelines or assets, with the correct alternatives named). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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