Read a pad

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld (true). The description adds critical behavioral detail not in annotations: pads are ephemeral (lost on server restart or after 24 hours of inactivity), and an empty result is ambiguous. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the action, second explains ephemeral nature, third clarifies ambiguity. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description implicitly indicates the return is the plain-text content (by stating what is read). It covers the ephemeral nature and ambiguity. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but is otherwise complete for a simple read tool with good annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including a regex pattern and description. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Reads' and resource 'plain-text content of a pad', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' (metadata) and mutation tools like 'create_document' or 'set_document'.

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 provides important context about when to use the tool by noting that empty results are ambiguous and pads are ephemeral. It implicitly advises against relying on a non-existent pad result, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'get_document_info'.

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