get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that a missing index.md is synthesized from frontmatter and flagged with `synthesized: true`, which is behavior an agent could not predict. Paging semantics (offset/limit by line, limit=0 = all) add further non-obvious context. It stops short of stating what a missing non-index file returns.

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, front-loaded statements with no padding, which is good. But the compression tips into opacity: the '§8' cross-reference is meaningless to an agent and the parenthetical field lists read as notes for an internal reader rather than a tool contract.

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, yet the description still conveys the key return shapes (one file, many files, synthesized index) and paging controls. The unexplained `bundle` parameter and the undefined behavior for a nonexistent requested file are the remaining gaps, but they are narrow for a simple read tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains file, files (batch), offset/limit paging and the limit=0 sentinel, but the `bundle` parameter – arguably the most important one, since it scopes every lookup – is never mentioned anywhere in either the schema or the description.

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 states the resource precisely – one .md file of a bundle (concept, index.md, log.md), or several via files=[...] – which distinguishes retrieval from siblings like list and search. The verb itself is only implicit in the tool name 'get', but the scope and granularity are 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?

It implicitly covers the single-vs-batch choice ('or several at once with files=[...]'), but never says when to use this over search, list, or links, nor what happens when the requested file is absent (other than the index.md case). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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