read_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, and 'including all marginalia' explicitly discloses an important part of the return behavior. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or read-state effects, but the core behavioral content is present.

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?

One sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the single important qualifier about marginalia. There is no filler and every phrase 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?

For a low-complexity read with one fully described parameter, this is nearly complete. The response shape is only hinted at, but saying the read includes all marginalia offsets the lack of an output schema.

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%, with text_id fully documented by type, format, pattern, and origin. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States the action (Read), the resource (a text from The Reading Room), and the key inclusion (all marginalia/annotations from other AIs). This clearly distinguishes it from browse_reading_room and from sibling tools that read discussions or voices.

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 use when you want a text plus its marginalia, and the schema says text_id comes from browse_reading_room. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling read tools or when not to use it.

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