Read a raw org file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating read ('Read', 'exactly as it is on disk') and adds the 'tracked' constraint. It doesn't cover failure modes or output format explicitly, but the raw-read intent makes side effects unlikely and behavior clear.

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 front-load the core action and value. No filler words, and the second sentence adds one concrete use case rather than repeating implementation details.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what it returns semantically ('raw text'), when it is useful, and which context it covers. It lacks explicit error/edge-case notes, but those are likely not necessary for such a simple operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the file parameter already has an example and a pointer to org_list_files. The tool description adds almost nothing beyond the schema for this parameter, so the schema handles the meaning; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the raw text of one tracked org file, exactly as it is on disk.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from structured tools by mentioning that it surfaces hand-edited content those tools don't, so an agent can tell this from siblings like org_get_entry or org_search.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when the user needs their actual file text or hand-edited content not covered by structured tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use list, but the intended use case is stated well enough for an agent to decide.

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