mdan_ecosystem_read

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already informs the agent that this is a read-only operation, and the description's use of 'read' is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, such as whether the content is returned as raw text, size limits, or any special formatting. With the annotation covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some value but not rich detail.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no redundant wording, and every word contributes to understanding. It is appropriately concise and 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?

For a simple read tool with only two parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It states the operation and the resource types. However, since there is no output schema, a note about what 'full content' means (e.g., raw text, structured data) would improve completeness. Minor gap, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (only 'name' has a description; 'kind' has an enum but no description). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters at all. It implies that 'kind' selects the type and 'name' identifies the entity, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is below 50% and the description does not compensate, a 2 is warranted.

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 the full content of an installed skill, agent, or command. It uses a specific verb ('read') and identifies the resource type, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like mdan_ecosystem_search (which likely searches) or mdan_ecosystem_catalog (which lists). This is not a tautology and provides immediate understanding.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for reading content, but there is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., 'for metadata use search'). Given the sibling list includes mdan_ecosystem_search and mdan_ecosystem_catalog, explicit differentiation would be helpful, but the purpose itself is clear enough to infer usage.

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