architect_sdd_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the read is bounded and returns an exact revision, but it does not explain pagination behavior, candidate-vs-live precedence, or error behavior for missing change_id.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its dense jargon ('registered artifact slice', 'exact live or candidate revision') trades clarity for brevity.

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 tool with five parameters, only 20% schema description coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. It leaves the agent without clear semantics for candidate revision selection, pagination, or required artifact_id beyond the schema name.

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 only 20%, with just workspace documented. The description only indirectly suggests limit/offset through 'bounded' and change_id through 'candidate revision'; it does not define artifact_id, change_id semantics, limit/offset defaults, or pagination behavior.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: read an artifact slice. The qualifiers 'bounded' and 'exact live or candidate revision' clarify the scope, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as architect_sdd_extract, architect_sdd_materialize, or architect_sdd_check.

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?

Gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to supply change_id versus read the live revision. The phrase 'live or candidate revision' hints at a branch, but the agent must infer the decision rule.

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