buk_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: parameters are validated against the official schema, results return original Buk data with pagination completeness, and permission errors are 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 three sentences and front-loads the core capability. The module examples are somewhat verbose but still reinforce scope, and the validation/return/error notes are useful rather than redundant.

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?

For a generic open-world read tool with a fully described schema, the description covers validation, result behavior, pagination completeness, and permission errors. It is close to complete, though it could better explain how this tool relates to the operation-list and specialized read tools.

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%, so the schema already documents operationId, path, query, and paginate. The description adds only the high-level note that parameters are validated against the official schema and does not contribute additional parameter-level semantics.

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: execute any documented GET operation against the authenticated Buk tenant. It clearly identifies the tool as a generic read-endpoint executor and lists covered domains, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the specialized read siblings such as buk_search_employees or buk_team_payroll.

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 by the broad scope: any documented read endpoint can be called through this tool. However, the description does not explain when to prefer this generic tool over specialized siblings or when not to use it, so an agent must infer the routing.

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