poem_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the parse-and-return behavior and mentions the output ('parsed structure'), implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it omits details like error handling or what happens with malformed input, leaving room for more explicit behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first defines the tool's function and return value, the second gives usage context. No redundancy or fluff; the description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read/parse tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and primary use case. It could mention that it does not validate or translate (which siblings do), but its context of understanding/discussing/translating already hints at that. The coverage is solid given the tool's simplicity.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the 'source' as .poem file content, which matches the schema description. 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 states a specific action ('Read and parse a .poem file') and resource (structured elements: constants, structs, functions, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like poem_validate and poem_translate by emphasizing parsing for understanding/discussion.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this when someone shares a .poem file or asks about its contents.' This signals appropriate usage without explicitly excluding alternatives or naming them, but the context alone is sufficient for a read/parse tool.

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