read_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns content, but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), permissions needed, or what 'digest' entails (e.g., a summary or hash). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with files.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (what 'contents and digest' means), error conditions, or file access constraints, which are crucial for a file-reading tool in this context with multiple markdown-related siblings.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, with only one parameter ('path'), the baseline is 4, but it's reduced to 3 because the description doesn't clarify what 'path' represents (e.g., file path format, relative vs. absolute) or provide any context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a markdown file'), and specifies what it returns ('contents and digest'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_markdown' or 'grep_controls_in_markdown', which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_markdown' and 'grep_controls_in_markdown' that might handle markdown files differently, there's no indication of when this specific read operation is preferred.

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