pm_contribute_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states returns full content but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. While read operations are generally safe, the description does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or other traits.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and result. It could mention error handling or content format, but given the tool's minimal complexity, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with the description for the 'file' parameter already provided. The tool description does not add semantic meaning beyond that; it merely restates the schema context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 action (Read) and the resource (a specific contribution document), and it returns full content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pm_contribute_list (lists docs) and pm_contribute_apply (applies a contribution).

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 by stating 'Read a specific contribution document,' but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The parameter hint 'from pm_contribute_list' suggests a workflow, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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