r7_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully signals that output can be normalized/structured across several document formats, but says nothing about failure modes (missing file, unsupported format), permissions, or what the returned text looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause identifies a supported capability, so it earns its length.

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 an 11-parameter, multi-format read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the surface but omits return-value expectations and format-to-parameter guidance. It is minimally adequate given the rich schema descriptions, but not complete.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters with format-specific detail. The description adds only a broad mapping of formats to capabilities and does not explain parameter interactions beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates the resource types it handles (structured text, filtered paragraphs, markdown preview, spreadsheet ranges, slides). However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like r7_sheet_read, r7_slide_read, or r7_inspect, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which read tool to pick.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the several sibling read tools that overlap in scope (r7_sheet_read, r7_slide_read, r7_inspect). The only usage hint ('Read this before changing a document') lives inside a parameter description, not the tool description.

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