hydra_document

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining what the returned document contains, that tab_editor is the authoritative editor text including hand-typed content, and that outputs o0–o3 may already be occupied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at roughly 75 words and front-loads the core resource definition before adding usage context. Every sentence contributes: the composition structure, the tab_editor truth, and the instruction to read before writing.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the document shape, the authoritative editor content, and the practical reason to call it. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens when there is no existing tab or primary, but this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is adequate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 identifies the tool's resource as the shared composition: ordered named blocks with code, author, and block separators, plus the truth of the tab_editor when applicable. It implies retrieval through 'Read this before writing' and the annotation title 'Read The Composition', but it never uses an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return' and does not contrast itself with sibling tools.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Read this before writing, so you extend the piece instead of talking over it — and so you can see which outputs (o0–o3) are already taken.' This is clear usage guidance, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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