read_po

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide response codes and examples, which is helpful, but the example entries are plain strings like 'unknown_type' while the schema defines POEntry objects, undermining clarity. Missing-file or invalid-file behavior is not addressed.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the response documentation is padded with placeholder-looking examples ('unknown_type') and an empty 422 properties block, which adds noise without meaningful value.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description plus the full input and output schemas provide enough information for correct invocation. The response examples and schema define the return shape, so the main missing piece is usage guidance, which is already penalized under that dimension.

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 single parameter file_path is already fully described as 'Absolute path to the .po file to read.' The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond that, fitting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action, 'Return every entry', applied to a specific resource, the requested PO file. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like read_po_context or find_fuzzy.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over read_po_context, write_po, or find_fuzzy. The description implies a full-file read, but it does not state any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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