http_read

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

Discloses key behaviors: binaries are never inlined, save_to is required for binary bodies, mask works only on JSON. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does a good job of conveying important behavioral details beyond schema.

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 sentences: first states core purpose, second gives a usage tip, third clarifies binary handling. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded effectively.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers binary handling, mask scope, and caching context. Slightly lacking in explicitly stating it reads cached responses (implied), but otherwise complete for a 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 high (75%). Description adds limited extra parameter meaning—mostly a tip for mask usage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already provides descriptions for mask, output_mode, and save_to. No mention of cache_id semantics beyond being required.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a cached response body, optionally filtered through a jq mask.' It specifies the verb 'read' and resource 'cached response body', and distinguishes from siblings like http_request (which makes requests) and http_inspect (likely inspects metadata) by focusing on cached data retrieval.

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?

Provides actionable tips: leading with 'length' to learn size, requiring save_to for binary bodies, and noting mask validity only for JSON. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to siblings, but the guidance is clear and context-aware.

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