jekyll_include_get

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares 'Read-only' and 'Never executes Liquid,' which is meaningful safety context for a templating include, and it previews the return content (source, front matter, parameter analysis, syntax checks). It stops short of describing error behavior for a missing include or any path-resolution rules.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return contents and the safety constraint. No filler, and the important boundary ('Never executes Liquid') is given its own sentence rather than buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it covers the read-only/non-executing behavior. The only gap is failure semantics when the include name does not resolve, which an agent calling a lookup-by-name tool would benefit from knowing.

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% and the single parameter's schema description ('Include name or relative path') is essentially duplicated in the description text. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the work and the description adds no format or resolution detail.

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 resource ('a Liquid include') plus the lookup key ('by name or relative path'). The sibling set contains jekyll_include_list, so the singular 'Read a Liquid include' cleanly differentiates this single-item retrieval tool from the listing tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this fetches one include versus jekyll_include_list enumerating them, but the description never says when to prefer it or what happens if the named include does not exist. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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