emacs_buffer_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that content is read. Nothing is said about the non-mutating guarantee, behavior on a nonexistent buffer, whether the active buffer changes, or return format—all material for an agent invoking this tool.

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 zero filler, stating the verb and resource immediately. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity is partly why behavioral and usage dimensions score lower.

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 1-parameter tool without an output schema, the purpose and the parameter are adequately covered. However, the total absence of behavioral context (error behavior, read-only guarantee) and any sibling differentiation leaves noticeable gaps, especially given the large tool family. Adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents the single 'buffer' parameter with a concrete example ('main.ts' or '*scratch*'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') with a clear resource ('contents of an Emacs buffer'), which naturally separates it from write/edit/kill siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close relatives like emacs_buffer_list or emacs_org_read, and 'contents' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns raw text.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus emacs_buffer_list, emacs_buffer_switch, emacs_file_open, or emacs_org_read. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'read'; no exclusions, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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