Read documentation

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that the documentation is embedded and provides workflow guidance, but it does not describe the output format or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a single sentence followed by a focused bullet list. No wasted 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?

This is a simple read-only tool with a fully documented parameter. The description covers its purpose and usage context, and the annotations cover its safety profile. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap since reading documentation content implies returning the text.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including examples like 'reference/operators/select'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool 'Read documentation content from the embedded Tenzir documentation,' specifying the verb (Read) and resource (embedded documentation). It distinguishes itself from the sibling docs_search by focusing on reading specific paths rather than searching, and the bullet points give concrete use cases.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with bullets: 'Read operator documentation BEFORE using any TQL operator,' 'Read function documentation BEFORE using any TQL function,' and 'Study tutorials and guides for learning workflows.' It does not explicitly mention when to use docs_search instead, but the context is clear.

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