Read a Rootr document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying the output is 'full markdown content' and that it accepts path or node id. Could mention any permission or size limits, but not required for a safe read operation.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose. First sentence defines the action and parameters; second sentence provides usage guidance. No redundancy or extra words.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect (full markdown) and how to call it (path or node id), fulfilling all information needs.

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?

Description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that path starts with '/' and that node id is an alternative. This helps the agent construct valid inputs, especially since the schema only provides a vague description.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' with resource 'Rootr document' and explicitly mentions two identifiers (path with '/' prefix and node id). Clearly distinguishes from sibling write tools like rootr_write and rootr_append.

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?

Explicitly states 'Read a document before editing or appending to it so you know its current structure.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from write operations.

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