MCP Document Reader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions supported file formats and the return type ('Extracted text'), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., unsupported formats, file not found), performance (e.g., large file handling), or permissions required. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise list of supported formats and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, supported formats, and parameter semantics, but could improve by adding behavioral details like error handling or limitations, especially since no annotations are provided.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'filename' parameter is a 'Path to the document file to read (supports absolute or relative paths)', clarifying usage and format. With only one parameter, this compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Reads and extracts text from a specified document file.' It specifies the verb ('Reads and extracts'), resource ('document file'), and scope ('text'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_document_images' beyond the focus on text versus images.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists supported file formats but does not mention when to choose this over 'extract_document_images' for image extraction or other siblings for writing operations. Usage context is implied by the tool's name but not explicitly stated.

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