read_resource

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

The description transparently discloses that command URIs execute server commands, which is a significant behavioral trait beyond a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and performs adequately.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs clearly stating the main purpose and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and uses bullet-style formatting for the parameter, making it easy to 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?

Given the tool's complexity (resolving both content and command URIs), the description covers the main functionality well. It does not explain command execution details or return format, but since an output schema exists, return values are covered. Some context on valid command URIs or security implications is missing.

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 100%, and the tool description repeats the same parameter information as the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 that the tool resolves guide:// URIs to return content or command output, with specific examples for content and command URIs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_content or list_resources by focusing exclusively on the guide:// URI scheme.

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 explains the two types of URIs accepted but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear, but usage context relative to siblings is implied rather than explicit.

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