warden__knowledge_read

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral note — "(reference, not instructions)" signals the returned content is untrusted data rather than directives, which is a real safety disclosure. However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens with an unknown or unverified pack, whether reads are logged, or what the returned content 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, and the parenthetical caveat is placed where it will be read. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the definition leaves key questions unanswered: valid pack identifiers, error behavior for missing files or unverified packs, and the shape of the returned content. For a read tool in a security-themed server, that is a meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only implies that `pack` identifies a knowledge pack and `file` a path within it, without format, case sensitivity, path syntax, or how to obtain a valid pack identifier.

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 a specific resource ("a file from a verified knowledge pack"), which is more precise than the bare name suggests. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as warden__knowledge, warden__recall, or warden__list, so an agent must infer which one retrieves pack contents.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the retrieval path for packs discovered via warden__list or vetted by warden__trust, but the description never says so.

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