read_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Read' which implies non-destructiveness, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, file size limits, encoding). Minimal additional value.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks full explanation of what 'project resource file' entails and why it differs from fs_read. The mismatch between description examples and schema values reduces completeness.

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 100% with a clear parameter description listing 'readme, changelog'. The description adds examples ('handoff, plan, schema, docs') that do not match the schema, causing confusion. Nonetheless, the schema itself sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 verb 'Read' and resource type 'project resource file' with examples, but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'fs_read' which also reads files. The mismatch between description examples (handoff, plan, schema, docs) and schema values (readme, changelog) slightly undermines clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_read or when to use each resource name. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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