read_datasheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the two input modes and chunking behavior, but does not disclose non-destructive nature, what happens if both parameters are provided, or the exact chunking algorithm. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, a bulleted list of modes, a sentence about query, and a recommendation to use a sibling tool. Every sentence contributes meaning with no waste.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It explains modes, query behavior, and chunk settings. The only minor gap is the lack of explanation about mutual exclusivity of file_path and sku, but overall it is quite complete.

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 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds value by explaining the two modes, query filtering to reduce context, and default chunk sizes. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 and chunks a datasheet PDF for analysis. It specifies two input modes (file_path and sku) and distinguishes itself from sibling list_datasheet_sections by advising to use that first.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each mode and recommends using list_datasheet_sections first. It explains that providing a query reduces context usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

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