read_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return shape, the error format, and explicitly states that a missing file is a normal state, not an error. This is full behavioral transparency.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, the return format, and error/missing-file behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return structure and error cases. It appropriately notes that a missing file is normal, preventing potential misinterpretation. The only gap is the directory parameter, but that is already accounted for in parameter semantics.

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 has one parameter 'directory' with default '.', but the description does not mention it at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should clarify how the directory parameter relates to reading the asset-record.json, but instead it only says 'current asset-record.json', leaving ambiguity about the parameter's role.

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 tool reads the current asset-record.json and reports missing author-only fields. The verb 'Read' and resource 'asset-record.json' are specific, and the action is distinct from sibling tools like get_record_schema or finalize_record.

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 conveys clear context: use to read the record and see which author-only fields are missing. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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