read_resource

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

The description discloses that content is returned as a string and that binary content is base64-encoded, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also clarifies the templating behavior, adding transparency about expected URI formats.

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 concise, using three sentences that each add value: the first states the core action, the second clarifies URI formatting, and the third explains the return format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, readOnlyHint, output schema present), the description covers the essential information: what it does, how to construct the URI, and what to expect in the response. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only says 'The URI of the resource to read', but the description enriches this by explaining the distinction between static and templated URIs and how to fill in template parameters. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly indicates the resource type ('a resource') and the method ('by its URI'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_resources and get_prompt by focusing on reading a single resource via URI.

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 provides explicit instructions on how to format URIs for static versus templated resources, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like list_resources or get_prompt, leaving 'when to use' somewhat implied.

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