context.read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by naming the exact side effects skipped: file-change sync and auto-checkpoint. It does not elaborate on return shape beyond 'same output as context.get', which is acceptable given the read-only profile is fully disclosed.

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?

Three short clauses: what it does, how it differs, when to pick it. The read-only consequence is front-loaded and every sentence carries decision-relevant 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 one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effects, and routing. The only minor gap is that the 'same output as context.get' reference assumes familiarity with that sibling's return shape.

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% and the depth parameter's three modes are fully documented in the schema, so the description needs no supplement. It adds nothing about depth, which matches the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 (read) and resource (session context) and immediately scopes it as the non-recording variant with the same output as context.get. An agent can distinguish it from context.get and context.summarize without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the client runs read-only') and a default preference with rationale ('prefer context.get otherwise so file changes stay recorded'). No inference is required to choose between the two siblings.

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