Read MiSTer.ini

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a real operational constraint by stating SSH is required. It also discloses that output is section-structured and that core-named sections override [MiSTer], which is behavior beyond the annotations. No failure behavior (e.g. unreachable host) is described.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and how it is parsed, then the section override rule, then the SSH prerequisite. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, structure, and the SSH requirement. The remaining gap is minor: it does not say what happens when a requested section or file is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by explaining the meaning of the section parameter — [MiSTer] is global and core sections override it — which the schema only hints at with an example. It also clarifies that alternate ini files exist, complementing the file parameter's own description.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (MiSTer.ini, or an alternate ini), plus the shape of the result: parsed into sections the way MiSTer reads it. That parsing detail distinguishes it from a generic file-read tool and implicitly from the write-side sibling set_ini.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ("Needs SSH") and explains the section hierarchy so the agent knows how to scope the read, but it never names the alternative tools (set_ini for writes, get_status for hosts) or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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