Read an H5P package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the closing 'Only reads' largely restates that. The description earns credit elsewhere: it discloses that bundled-library packages are read for content only while 'libraries' merely lists them, and that 'supported' reports whether build_h5p can build that type at that version — behavior no annotation or schema conveys.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and near every clause carries information (round-trip shape, libraries handling, supported flag). The middle sentences are run-on with only light connective punctuation, which slows parsing slightly but wastes no 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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description goes beyond necessity: it explains the round-trip contract with build_h5p, the meaning of 'supported', and how libraries are handled. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'The .h5p file (absolute path)'. The description adds the context that the path must be a local package, but supplies no format details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read what a local .h5p package holds') and enumerates the returned facets: type, version, title, language, content. It explicitly positions itself opposite build_h5p ('the same shape build_h5p takes') and against list_h5p_types, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: reviewing a package, or changing it and rebuilding with build_h5p, which names the sibling to use for the write path. It lacks an explicit exclusion ('do not use for remote URLs' or 'not for listing available types'), so it is clear but not fully bounded.

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