read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: format support, read modes (raw/paginated), and interactive UI for specific formats. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits that would be important for a document reading 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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each add value: first establishes core functionality with format enumeration, second adds mode and UI information. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple formats and modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good foundational context. It covers what the tool does, supported formats, and key operational modes. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, making this reasonably complete for agent usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about format support and modes that complements the schema, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('document content'), enumerates supported file formats, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' (metadata) and 'write_document' (write operation). It provides comprehensive scope information beyond just the tool name.

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 implies usage context through format support and mode options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_document_info' for metadata or 'write_document' for modifications. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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