Read MCP Server Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that it returns 'text or base64-encoded blob' content, which helps the agent understand output format. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the URI doesn't exist) or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage note, and sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized, but the Args section repeats schema details unnecessarily, slightly reducing efficiency. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying the return format.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters (via schema), and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid URIs), which would be helpful for an agent. The annotations provide good safety context, compensating somewhat.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter info (e.g., 'target (string): Target MCP server - command or URL') but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Read a specific resource') and resource ('from a target MCP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_resources (which lists rather than reads) and call_tool (which invokes tools rather than reading resources). The verb 'fetch the content' further clarifies the operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to fetch the content of a resource by its URI'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with list_resources (which might be used first to discover URIs) or get_prompt (which handles prompts rather than general resources).

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