Read Measures

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — it does not say what a ``.meas`` result contains, how failures or missing measurements are reported, or how log_path relates to the source data.

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?

It is a single front-loaded phrase with no waste, which is structurally fine. But at this length it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

With no output schema and no return-value documentation, the agent cannot know what shape of measurement data comes back or under what conditions it is empty. For a data-retrieval tool in a large sibling family, this is a meaningful gap.

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 only 50%, and the one undocumented parameter is the required log_path, whose meaning is never explained in either schema or description. The description implies reading measurement output but never connects it to log_path or explains the workspace_root override's role.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("``.meas`` results"), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like list_measures or export_measures_csv, leaving the agent to guess which one returns the actual measurement data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_measures (enumeration) or export_measures_csv (serialization). No prerequisites, no mention of what file the results come from, and no exclusions.

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