readlink

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). Description reinforces this and adds context: explains that it returns JSON, describes the effect of '--canonicalize' (resolves every component), and notes that 'strict' causes failure on non-existent paths. 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 a few short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language. Efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and alternatives.

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's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key use cases, output format, and a critical distinction from a sibling tool. It also mentions the '--canonicalize' option and the 'strict' behavior. Adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., the behavior of 'canonicalize' and 'strict'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 tool's purpose: reading symlink targets or canonicalizing paths. It distinguishes from sibling 'realpath' by specifying that 'readlink' does not perform full path resolution with existence checks. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('inspect symlink targets or normalize paths') and when not to use ('Not for full path resolution with existence checks'), and recommends 'realpath' as an alternative. Provides clear usage context.

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