iyke_scratchpad_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 404 error if the scratchpad is missing and specifies return fields (id, body, updated_at). This adequately covers behavioral traits for a read-only operation, though it could mention if there are any side effects or access restrictions.

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: three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, error condition, and output fields. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, error, and return fields. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and any usage context (e.g., what a scratchpad is), which reduces completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by scope+name' without explaining what 'scope' or 'name' mean, their constraints, or allowed values. This leaves the agent with minimal understanding of the parameters beyond their names.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'scratchpad', specifying the parameters 'scope+name'. It distinguishes from siblings like write, append, list, delete by clearly indicating this is a retrieval operation. The mention of return fields further clarifies purpose.

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 implies usage for reading existing scratchpads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iyke_scratchpad_list or iyke_scratchpad_write. No when-not-to-use or context is given.

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