project_docs_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses the SHA-256 return value and the 'one allowed' path restriction, which signals that only a vetted subset of paths is accepted. It omits what happens when the path is not allowed (error shape, rejection behavior), keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then the sequencing rationale. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return payload (content plus SHA-256), and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. It would be complete at 5 if it addressed failure behavior for disallowed paths, given the 'allowed' restriction is central to the tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents rel_path, repo, authority_file, and workspace_root. The description reinforces that rel_path must be an 'allowed' project doc but adds no syntax, examples, or defaults beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read one allowed .issueops project document') and names exactly what is returned ('content plus SHA-256'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutators project_docs_revise and project_docs_append without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Use before project_docs_revise so autonomous doc refreshes preserve user consensus and avoid stale overwrites', which tells the agent both the trigger and the reason. It does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to project_docs_route or project_docs_append, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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