read_document

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses truncation at 12k chars default and that frontmatter is removed. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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: first states purpose, second provides usage context and a key behavioral note. Every sentence is essential, no fluff.

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?

Covers main points: what it returns (body without frontmatter), truncation, and usage context. No output schema but return type is clear. Could briefly mention error handling or response format but not essential for this tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the default truncation limit (12k chars) when maxBody is not set, 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 states it reads the full markdown body of an OnMind document without frontmatter, and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_content and get_entry by noting it is used after those for full technical content.

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 explicitly says to use it after search_content/get_entry when needing full technical content, and mentions truncation behavior. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use cases or list alternatives beyond the two named.

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