Read an Octopus resource by URI

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true. Description adds context: returns byte-identical bodies, how to interpret response (mimeType/text), and that it's a backstop for clients without resources/read. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and headings. Each sentence adds value, but slightly verbose; could be more concise. Still, very effective.

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?

Comprehensive: explains purpose, usage, response interpretation (mimeType/text), limitations (no task log resource), and even mentions alternative (grep_task_log). All gaps covered despite no output schema.

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 100% with one parameter. Description adds value by specifying 'pass the URI string verbatim', providing concrete examples, and explaining the origin of URIs (from other tools).

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 it is a 'Universal fetch for any octopus:// URI' returned by other tools, specifies the exact use case, and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that clients with native resources/read support can skip this tool.

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?

Explicit instructions: pass URI verbatim, examples provided, when to use (whenever you see resourceUri fields), when not to use (task log, directing to grep_task_log instead), and lists sibling tools that return URIs.

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