text.read

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

With no annotations, the description only says 'Read', implying no side effects but not explicitly stating behavioral traits like immutability or authorization requirements. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and no superfluous words, appropriate for a simple tool. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., text content, properties). It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description does not explain the 'name' parameter despite 0% schema coverage, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema title 'Text data-block name' for meaning. It fails to clarify how to obtain a valid name.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('Text data-block'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like text.write or text.create. However, it could be more specific about what reading entails (e.g., returning content versus metadata).

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 alternatives such as text.open or text.list. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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