latexmk_read_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Read' clearly indicates a non-destructive operation, and specifying 'from the project and home directory' discloses the scope and likely precedence. However, it doesn't detail behavior such as merging or error handling, so it's not a full 5.

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 single concise sentence without redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse and scan.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it reads and where. It could mention the return format or merge behavior, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional working_dir parameter. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only confirming that both project and home directories are read. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads active .latexmkrc config files from the project and home directory. This distinguishes it from siblings like latexmk_compile or latexmk_write_config, as the verb 'read' and the resource 'config files' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to inspect current LaTeX configuration settings. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with write_config and other actions is clear from the name and description, providing sufficient context.

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