maket_reader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose per-action return behavior (page returns one rendered page without image data; image returns a downscaled image; write mutates a state document). However it omits mutation risks such as revision conflicts or permission needs, and the 'Not for agents' caveat adds behavioral ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that maps each action to its effect with no filler. It is dense but every clause describes a distinct operation, though the trailing 'Not for agents' clause is questionable rather than load-bearing.

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 9-parameter, three-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the actions and their return shapes adequately. It nonetheless leaves concurrency/permission behavior for the write action unaddressed and includes the confusing 'Not for agents' caveat, so it is only marginally complete.

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%, and the schema already documents each parameter including the action enum and the write-only fields (op, path, value, expectedRevision). The description adds only high-level context ('write sets one value of a state document') and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (the Maket reader view) and enumerates its three operations (page, image, write) with what each does. An agent can grasp the scope, though 'Calls of the Maket reader view' is slightly awkward and the tool is not clearly distinguished from siblings like maket_page or maket_image.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite closely related siblings (maket_page, maket_image, maket_state). The only routing cue is the puzzling 'Not for agents', which gives no positive condition for selection and is likely to mislead rather than guide an agent.

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