Read markdown with images

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral detail: it interleaves image blocks and clarifies parameter precedence. However, it does not describe the output format in detail or error behavior, which would add further transparency.

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 concise: two sentences that cover purpose and usage guidance without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and it is well-structured.

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?

The description covers input parameters and behavior adequately. It mentions optional indexing with index_md. However, there is no output schema, and the description could be more specific about the output format and error handling, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between section and line_range (precedence) and hints at using index_md for heading discovery, which is not in 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 reads a markdown file and returns it with interleaved image blocks. It specifies the resource (markdown file), action (read with images), and differentiates from the sibling tool index_md by mentioning its optional use for heading discovery.

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 explicitly explains when to use section vs line_range parameters, including the precedence rule. It also recommends using index_md first to discover headings, providing clear context on tool selection and parameter use.

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