read_resource_body

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is read-only, and the description reinforces this, but more importantly it adds the return payload details ('uri', 'name', 'description', and full text body') which are not in an output schema. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not cover error cases or other edge behaviors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage/return details in the second. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, and the description sufficiently covers the operation, usage condition, and return format. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'uri' with examples and format. The description adds minimal additional meaning (e.g., 'single resource URI' and types) but does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetch the rendered body of a single resource URI'), specifies the resource types (rule, guideline, context document), and distinguishes itself from the two-step resources/list + resources/read handshake. This is a specific verb+resource definition that sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when you already know the URI and want to inline its content into a tool-call result') and references the alternative two-step approach it avoids. This gives clear context and an explicit alternative, fulfilling the dimension perfectly.

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