read_bundle_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds value by disclosing 'digest verification' (integrity checking) and 'byte bounds' (content size limit), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations and potentially affect call outcomes (e.g., failures or truncation).

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?

A single sentence packs the action, scope, and key constraints without waste. The critical qualifiers are front-loaded, making the tool's intent immediately clear. No redundant or filler text.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description conveys the essential constraints (reference requirement, digest verification, byte limits). It could mention the return format, but the lack of output schema and the simplicity of the operation make the current description adequate. The qualifiers about 'already indexed' are useful context.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond referencing 'byte bounds' which maps to maxContentBytes; it meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource ('bundle asset') and adds distinguishing qualifiers ('explicitly referenced, already indexed') plus operational details ('digest verification and byte bounds'). This clearly differentiates it from generic read tools and sibling operations like read_git_source.

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 phrase 'explicitly referenced, already indexed' implicitly tells the agent the asset must be known by URI or bundle+path, steering toward use when a specific asset is targeted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a read operation within a known bundle.

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