infomaniak_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that operations must be 'reviewed' and are bounded by the connection's account/resource grants, which is genuine extra context about authorization scope, but it omits what happens on an ungranted or non-reviewed operation.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is abstract and jargon-heavy ('reviewed read', 'grants') rather than genuinely front-loading the essential information an agent needs.

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 generic dispatcher with a free-form required 'operation' string and a nested, free-form 'arguments' object at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should explain how operations are identified and what argument shapes are expected, especially alongside an infomaniak_catalogue sibling.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it never explains what values 'operation' takes, how they are discovered, or how 'arguments' should be shaped for each operation. Only the grant-scoping hint gives any signal about valid operation values.

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 restates the tool's own name ('read') and adds only a vague scope phrase, 'within this connection's account/resource grants.' It never says what resource is being read or how it differs from siblings like infomaniak_search or infomaniak_catalogue. An agent cannot tell what this tool actually retrieves.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that likely cover overlapping ground (search, catalogue, status). The word 'read' faintly implies a read path, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to infomaniak_search.

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