Reads annotations for a specific file or returns a Markdown coverage overview of all annotated files when no path is provided.
Reads file annotations.
Args:
path: Specific file to read the annotation for. Empty = coverage
overview with all annotated files.
Returns:
The annotation (or coverage summary) in Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It identifies the operation as a read and states the return format is Markdown, but it does not discuss permissions, missing-file behavior, or any other edge cases.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args and Returns sections add useful structure without unnecessary text.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the parameter's two modes and the return format, though it could do more to distinguish sibling tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that path selects a specific file and that an empty path triggers a coverage overview with all annotated files.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads file annotations.' It also clarifies the alternate mode when path is empty. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as save_annotation or list_unannotated_files.
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 the two usage modes: a specific file path reads that file's annotation, while empty path returns a coverage overview. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus related alternatives like save_annotation or list_unannotated_files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.