kb_read_document

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 usefully discloses that the return is extracted text (not raw bytes), but says nothing about behavior on missing files, truncation signaling, or permission/error conditions. The output schema covers the return shape, which offsets this somewhat.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact param block. No wasted prose, though the Sphinx-style ':param' formatting is slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and both parameters are documented. The remaining gap is error/missing-file behavior and how truncation is indicated to the caller.

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, and it does: relpath is defined relative to the volume root with a concrete example, and max_chars is bounded (1-50000). The default value of 6000 is only in the schema, and truncation semantics aren't spelled out, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource: return the extracted plain text of one document. The 'one document' scope implicitly separates it from kb_search and kb_list_tree, though no sibling is named.

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 parenthetical '(for quoting/summarising)' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to kb_search for finding a path first.

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