read_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'tier labeling' and section extraction, but does not describe error behavior (e.g., invalid section), permission requirements, side effects, or return format. The schema does provide some behavior cues (e.g., bad section shows TOC), but the description itself is too sparse to be transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loading the primary action ('Read a workspace document'). Every word adds value; no filler or redundant information. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a straightforward read tool. It lacks an explicit tie to the broader workflow (e.g., when to use tier labeling), but the schema compensates by covering path discovery and error behavior. The main gap is the absence of a clear 'when to use' context, but the tool is simple enough that a 4 is warranted.

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 description coverage is 100% and quite detailed for all three parameters (path semantics, section extraction behavior, max_chars bounds). The description only adds a small clarifying clause ('extracts a markdown heading') which is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Read a workspace document') with a distinctive feature ('tier labeling') and an optional section-extraction capability. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_file, which reads arbitrary files, and list_knowledge_topics, which discovers paths.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to read workspace documents. The schema's path description mentions using list_knowledge_topics to discover paths, which is a usage hint, but the main description does not explicitly state when to prefer read_doc over alternatives (e.g., read_file, search_code) or when not to use it.

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