Get Markdown

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

The description discloses the core behavior (reading content) and the versioning nuance. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it is fairly transparent but does not mention error handling (e.g., missing file) or authentication requirements.

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 with no wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded: the tool's purpose and the optional version parameter.

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 read tool without output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly mention the return format (e.g., file contents as a string) but the current level is sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% as both parameters are described. The description adds meaningful context by linking version to list_versions and clarifying its optionality, which is not fully explained in the schema.

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 action ('Read a .md file's content by path'), specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_markdown or update_markdown by focusing solely on reading.

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 explains when to use the optional 'version' parameter to read old versions, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for writing) or mention alternatives.

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