rms_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads content and implies no side effects (e.g., noPromote parameter notes vault reads are side-effect free). However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response format, making it minimally adequate.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main usage (path and retrieval context) but fails to mention the 'id', 'project', and 'noPromote' parameters. The schema partially covers these, but the description could be more complete by briefly explaining optional parameters.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds emphasis on the 'path' parameter but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema for 'project' and 'noPromote'. The 'id' parameter is not described in either the schema or the description, so the description does not fully compensate for the gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'full contents of a markdown document from the RMS Memory vault'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, especially rms_search, by specifying that it is used to retrieve the full context of a document found via search.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: after finding a document via rms_search, to retrieve its full context. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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