Read one native's card

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description reinforces that with 'Read'. It adds some context about the output contents but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, rate limits, or what happens for unknown names. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences deliver the entire specification: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second defines acceptable parameter formats. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

With no output schema present, the description properly lists what the response contains: signature, description, permissions, reasons it can return, first build, example, and related guides. Combined with the clear input syntax, this is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool effectively.

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 describes the runtime parameter, leaving the name parameter with no schema-level meaning. The description compensates fully by defining both accepted forms—qualified names and side-pinned names—with concrete examples. This gives an agent the precise input syntax needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one native's card', and enumerates exactly what the card contains. It clearly distinguishes itself from broader sibling tools like open77_search and open77_guide by focusing on a single native's full documentation.

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 gives clear context: this tool should be used when you need the full card for a specific Lua native, and it explains the accepted input forms. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the singular 'one native' focus makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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