read_xml_fragment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'bounded' hints at limits, but the description does not disclose return behavior, error cases, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics. The verb 'Read' implies no side effects, but this is not explicit.

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 one sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than ideally concise. Still, it earns points for zero waste.

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?

With no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is under-specified for a 4-parameter tool. It omits what 'path' refers to, how 'bounded' limits are applied, the output format, and error behaviors. Even though an output schema exists, the description still needs to provide operational context, which it does not.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It only hints at 'bounded' (relating to max_matches/max_characters) and 'XPath' (relating to xpath), but it does not explain the purpose or format of path, xpath, max_matches, or max_characters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'XML fragments' and specifies the method 'ElementTree-compatible XPath'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_xml_edits (write operation) and query_objects (PCB objects), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer read_xml_fragment over other query tools like get_object or get_document_info, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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