read_resource_body

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and specifies the return fields (uri, name, description, body). With no annotations, it provides essential behavioral context but lacks details on error handling or performance.

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 short and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence contributes meaning: purpose, usage condition, safety (read-only), and return content. No superfluous words.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and return data. It could mention potential errors but is adequate for most use cases.

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 only parameter (uri) is fully described in the schema with examples. The description adds that URIs can be for rules, guidelines, or context documents, but this is already implied by the schema examples. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 identifies the tool's function: fetching the rendered body of a single resource URI. It uses specific verbs and nouns ('Fetch the rendered body') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it avoids the two-step handshake.

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 states when to use ('when you already know the URI and want to inline content') and implies the alternative (two-step handshake). It could explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., if you don't have the URI) but is clear enough.

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