Read a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering non-destructiveness. The description adds that the tool can return the whole page or a line range and clarifies path resolution, which is useful context. It does not discuss error behavior or output format, but with annotations 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences that state the core purpose and a key path convention without waste. No redundant information; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: whole-page or partial access and path format. There is no output schema, but the return content is implied by 'Read'. Annotations cover safety, making the description nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters are well documented. The description's statement about paths relative to content/ and line ranges is already reflected in the schema examples and default descriptions. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('knowledge base page'), clearly distinguishing from siblings kb_search, kb_amend, and kb_list. The qualifier 'whole or a line range' adds precision about the scope of the read operation.

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?

Provides a path convention (relative to content/ or start with content/) that aids invocation, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like kb_search or kb_list. The intended use case is implied rather than stated.

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