read_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about the return format (string content, base64 for binary). It doesn't contradict annotations. It could add more behavioral detail like what happens for nonexistent URIs or error conditions, but with readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 appropriately concise with clear paragraph breaks for scope (static vs templated) and return format. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly more detail could be trimmed but it's well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 a single parameter, a full output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential usage guidance. It explains the return type and binary encoding behavior which supplements the output schema. Complete for a simple read tool with good annotation coverage.

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%, so the single uri parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about how to fill the URI for static vs templated resources, which adds value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a resource by URI, distinguishing it from list_resources (which lists rather than reads). It also differentiates static vs templated resource handling. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative but the verb+resource+behavior is clear.

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 explains when to use it for static vs templated resources, providing explicit guidance on how to construct the URI in each case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like list_resources for discovery.

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