read_bundle_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: 'digest verification and byte bounds' indicating integrity checks and content size limits, which helps the agent anticipate side effects or constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It packs the verb, resource, key qualifiers, and two behavioral notes into a compact structure that is easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral traits. However, since there is no output schema, the description would benefit from briefly stating what is returned (e.g., asset content or metadata), making that the only minor gap.

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 all parameters (uri, path, bundle, maxContentBytes) are already documented with their own descriptions. The tool description only re-emphasizes the reference modes and byte bounds, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('bundle asset'), with qualifiers 'explicitly referenced, already indexed' that clearly distinguish it from sibling listing or validation tools. It is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's function.

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 phrase 'explicitly referenced, already indexed' establishes a clear precondition: this tool is for reading known assets, not for discovery. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools for searching/listing, the context implies when it should be used and no exclusions are stated.

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