docs_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses a read operation ('Read') and implies no side effects. However, it does not detail potential error states, file size limits, or return format specifics beyond 'markdown content'. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the purpose, input requirements, and source for parameters. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (full markdown content), what parameters are needed, and how to get them. Could mention error handling but overall sufficient.

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 is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds value by specifying the path should come 'from docs_list', guiding the agent on parameter sourcing beyond the schema definitions.

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 the full markdown content') and the resource ('one doc file'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like docs_list (which lists) and docs_search (which searches) by specifying it reads content.

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 instructs the agent to 'Pass the package name and the path from docs_list', providing clear context on when to use the tool (after obtaining a path from docs_list). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like docs_search.

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