read_design_sidecar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and identifies the sidecar location, but does not explain permissions, missing-sidecar behavior, parsing behavior, output format, or other operational details.

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 useful purpose statement is front-loaded, but it is followed by two promotional sentences about Kiln Pro and an upgrade URL. Those sentences do not help an agent invoke the tool and substantially dilute an otherwise short definition.

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 read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It identifies the resource and sidecar location but leaves out the usage, parameter, and behavioral context needed for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the sole parameter stl_path is undocumented. The description vaguely implies the path points to an STL or recipe file next to the sidecar, but does not clarify path format, accepted file types, or whether the parameter should target the model file rather than the sidecar itself.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: reading provenance data from a sidecar next to an STL or recipe file. That is clear and distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain where it fits among provenance-related 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 no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives such as get_provenance_history or verify_provenance_integrity. The only practical prerequisite mentioned is 'Requires Kiln Pro', which does not help the agent choose the tool.

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