rew_read_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are confined to REW_OUTPUT_DIR, an optional JSON Pointer selects a subtree, and pagination applies to objects, arrays or long strings. It does not say what happens on a missing file or unresolvable pointer.

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 dense sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and resource. The trailing clause about pagination targets is slightly compressed but still earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so return-shape information would be useful and is only partially implied. For a 4-parameter, 0%-coverage tool the description covers the core concepts but omits error behavior, filename format and how limit/offset map to different JSON structures.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It gives meaning to 'pointer' (JSON Pointer into the result) and 'limit'/'offset' (pagination of objects, arrays or long strings), but leaves filename conventions, default page size and the per-key semantics of limit for objects undocumented.

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 a saved JSON result inside REW_OUTPUT_DIR, with JSON Pointer addressing and pagination. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are mostly API/measurement tools, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read a saved JSON result inside REW_OUTPUT_DIR' — it is the tool for inspecting previously saved JSON output. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when a pointer does not resolve, and no routing to siblings for other cases.

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