read_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It appropriately conveys that this is a read operation (as the verb 'read' implies) and specifies exactly what content is returned (full frontmatter and body). It also explains the path semantics, which adds useful behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the core action and resource, then provides the key qualifier about path provenance, with no unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is complete. It explains what is read, the path format, and the source of the path. Since there is no output schema, noting that it returns frontmatter and body satisfies the need for return-value clarity.

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 already documents the single path parameter with an example. The description goes further by specifying that paths are relative to the repo root and are returned by list_concepts, adding meaning beyond the schema's example.

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 verb ('read') and the resource ('one OKF concept'), including the scope ('full frontmatter and body'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the path-based access, which complements list_concepts and find_concept_by_resource.

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 gives clear context that this tool should be used when you have a path, which is explicitly tied to the output of list_concepts. It does not explicitly say when not to use find_concept_by_resource, but the path-centric wording implies the alternative.

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