read_workspace_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and says almost nothing behavioral: no error behavior when a doc is missing, no indication of whether the content is returned raw or parsed (notably DELIVERY_MANIFEST.json is a JSON file, contradicting the 'Markdown file' framing), no size or truncation notes. Only the read-only nature is implied by the verb.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical examples are load-bearing because they effectively document the doc_name values. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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 two-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the project scoping, the return shape (raw text vs. parsed), and what happens on a missing file. None of that is present, so the agent is under-informed relative to the tool's surface.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does for doc_name via the file-name examples, but the 'project' parameter is never mentioned at all, including its default of 'default'. An agent cannot tell how to scope the read to a non-default project from the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('shared Markdown file in the project workspace') and enumerates real file names, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It doesn't explicitly point at the sibling it complements, write_workspace_doc, leaving the read/write contrast to be inferred from the verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this versus alternatives — no mention of write_workspace_doc, get_project_bible, list_asset_requirements, or when a workspace doc is the right source versus those. The examples hint at the doc set but give no selection criteria or preconditions.

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