postit.read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which conveys a read-only operation, but does not describe what constitutes the 'full body', how the optional 'dir' parameter affects behavior, error handling, or return format. The output schema exists but the description adds no extra behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists and sibling tools provide some context, the description omits crucial usage context: when to use this vs. read_section/read_lines, how 'dir' factors in, and what 'full body' means (including formatting or size limits). The tool is simple, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 0%—the description does not mention the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'dir' parameter. Since the description must compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail but fails to do so, the parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 'Read a postit's full body' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (postit), and the 'full body' scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like postit.read_section and postit.read_lines. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on what a 'postit' is in this domain.

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 phrase 'full body' implies this tool is for reading the complete content of a postit, as opposed to partial reads (read_section, read_lines) or listing (postit.ls). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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