read_remote_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses the read action and the need to browse first. It does not mention return format, error behavior, or side effects beyond the implied read-only nature. The workflow hint adds some value, but transparency is limited.

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 two short sentences with the purpose stated first and usage guidance second. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise and 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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description provides sufficient workflow context (browse first) and purpose, though it omits explicit return value details and failure modes. Given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description only reinforces 'read one by its URI'. No additional parameter semantics are offered, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Read a resource from a remote MCP server' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'browse' by explicitly referencing it as the discovery step, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 instruction 'Use browse first to see available resources, then use this to read one by its URI' directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus browse, establishing a clear workflow. This is explicit guidance on usage order and differentiates from a key sibling.

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