mc_read_words

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds that it returns signed 16-bit integers, the count is capped server-side, and the operation is a batch read. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the risk tag and purpose, then using a clear Args/Returns/Example structure. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains all parameters, the return format, and even provides an example, matching the tool's moderate complexity.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains all three parameters: headdevice (with examples like D100), endpoint (from config), and count (range 1-256, capped). An example invocation is also provided, leaving no ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'batch-read' and identifies the resource '16-bit word devices from a head device'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on word device batch reading, unlike mc_read_bits for bits or mc_read_many for mixed types.

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 implies the tool is for reading multiple consecutive words from a head device, listing parameters and an example. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools (e.g., mc_read_bits, mc_read_many) makes the specific use case clear.

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