Read one allowlisted UTF-8 file by relative path, redacting credentials and raw challenge flags for safe access to policy-gated content.
Read one allowlisted UTF-8 note with potential credentials and raw challenge flags redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relative_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions redaction of credentials and challenge flags, which is valuable, but does not cover error handling, path validation, or what happens if the note is not allowlisted. The description provides some behavioral context beyond the raw schema.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant phrases. Every word adds meaning, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and important behavior (redaction). While it could mention error conditions or path resolution, the tool's simplicity means this level of detail is largely sufficient.
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 input schema has one parameter, relative_path, with no description and 0% coverage. The tool description implies the path identifies the note but does not explicitly explain its format, what 'relative' refers to, or allowlist criteria. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and 'allowlisted' adds a constraint, providing marginal compensation for the 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 that the tool reads a note, with specific qualifiers (allowlisted UTF-8, redaction) that distinguish it from sibling tools like evidence_create_note, evidence_search, and evidence_append_lesson. The verb 'Read' and resource 'note' make the purpose immediately clear.
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 that this tool is used for reading existing notes by relative path, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no guidance such as 'use evidence_search to find notes before reading.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.