PAIDEIA__read_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic read operation. There is no mention of being read-only, permissions needed, or any side effects. The description lacks transparency about what the tool does beyond its surface purpose.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about naming is arguably unnecessary but does not significantly detract from conciseness. Overall, it is efficiently sized.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain truncation behavior (max_chars), default project_root path, or return format. A more complete description would include these details for correct invocation.

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 tool description adds meaning for the 'path' parameter by stating it is a 'relative path' to the artifact. However, it does not explain 'max_chars' or 'project_root' beyond what the schema already provides. With only 33% schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 the tool reads a PAIDEIA course artifact by relative path. The verb 'Read' and resource 'course artifact' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'read_artifact', which is presumably the same function without the PAIDEIA namespace.

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?

The description only instructs to 'use this exact name when Alt searches for PAIDEIA__read_artifact', which is not a meaningful usage guideline. It fails to specify when to prefer this tool over sibling 'read_artifact' or other alternatives.

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