read_repository_document

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 states the tool reads a document, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'read' entails (e.g., returns raw content, metadata, or formatted output), whether there are authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning its place as a model of conciseness.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how it behaves, but it meets a bare minimum for a read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('path' and 'repository'), including an example for 'path' and an enum for 'repository'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining path conventions or repository purposes. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('a specific document from the DeSo repository'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'repository_search' or 'deso_api_explorer', which might also involve document access. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for retrieving known documents by path) versus when to use 'repository_search' (for finding documents by content) or other siblings. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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