read_source

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only notes the file type limitation but lacks details about error handling, encoding, size limits, or permissions. Minimal disclosure.

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 plus a one-line arg description. Each sentence adds value: purpose, file type restriction, parameter meaning. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema. However, missing info on behavior when path is invalid or points to a directory. Reasonable but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds 'Path within the raw source directory' for the path parameter, which is basic but insufficient—no format or examples. Does not fully compensate for lack of schema documentation.

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 returns text of raw source documents, specifying types (transcript, article, notes). It also restricts to text files, which distinguishes from sibling tools like read_page that deal with wiki pages.

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?

Provides explicit constraints: only text files, not PDFs/binaries. This tells when to use (text raw sources) and when not to (binaries). No explicit alternatives named, but context implies other tools for non-raw sources.

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