read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include provenance, module guidance/units, an observation token, that fields=[] avoids loading adjustment parameters, and that targets are absolute rather than deltas. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, permissions, or other operational constraints.

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 short and front-loads the core action, followed by practical usage notes. There is little wasted text, though the line break and terseness make some guidance feel compressed rather than fully structured.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth. Still, for a generic 'read' tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves sibling routing, parameter value formats, and some operational behavior unclear.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It adds meaningful semantics for fields (empty array behavior), module (read before edits), target (absolute, not delta), and modules (skip modules without a visible purpose), but it does not specify accepted values, target object structure, or the relationship between module and modules.

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 verb and resource: reading native parameters, including provenance, module guidance/units, and an observation token. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as context or preview, and 'native parameters' is somewhat domain-specific.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use fields=[] for target/preview without loading adjustment parameters, read module=... before edits, and skip modules without a visible purpose. It does not name alternative sibling tools for comparison, but it establishes clear when-to-use conditions and one exclusion.

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