read_dict

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key conditional behavior (if `entry` is supplied and OpenFOAM is installed, return only that value; otherwise full contents), which is valuable. However, it does not describe the output format, error handling, or what 'full contents' means in practice, leaving gaps for the agent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately covers the conditional behavior. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the conditional logic. It could mention output format or error cases, but the core decision path is explained. It is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `entry` parameter with foamDictionary syntax examples, which adds meaning. The `path` parameter is only implicitly understood from the tool's purpose, not explicitly described. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 an OpenFOAM dictionary file, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes its behavior based on the `entry` parameter, which makes it distinct from sibling tools like `set_dict_entry` that write. The purpose is specific and not a tautology.

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 implies usage for reading dictionary files but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like `set_dict_entry` or `check_case`. The conditional behavior when `entry` is provided is explained, but there is no direct 'use this when' guidance. It is adequate but leaves the selection decision to the agent.

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