system_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: backup payloads are base64-encoded only when within max_inline_bytes (implying truncation/bounding otherwise), and it explicitly disclaims settings changes and deletions. This goes beyond restating the 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?

Three sentences: purpose first, then the base64/bounding constraint, then a negative scope statement. Front-loaded and mostly waste-free, though the negative clause partly duplicates the readOnly annotation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The three operational modes and the inline-size constraint are stated, leaving only the pagination params unaddressed.

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 0% across 5 params, so the description carries the burden. It explains action_name's modes and the meaning of max_inline_bytes, but leaves limit and offset (pagination) and backup_filename's exact usage undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus the resource (Snipe-IT version/system info and backups) and enumerates the three supported modes: version data, list backups, download one backup. No sibling tool competes for this resource, so it is easily distinguishable, though it never explicitly names siblings.

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?

Gives a hint for one mode ('Version data supports capability diagnosis') and a constraint for the download mode, but never explains when to choose version vs list vs download; the routing is left to the reader to infer from action_name. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are provided.

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