read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the vault-scoping constraint, but says nothing about truncation behavior, missing-path errors, or what the directory listing mode returns — the max_bytes cap in the schema hints at truncation that the description never addresses.

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 with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

Safety is covered by annotations and params by the schema, but with no output schema the description should clarify what read actually returns in each mode and how truncation manifests. For a dual-mode tool with a 10MB byte cap, that omission leaves a real 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 four parameters (including the non-obvious workspace_path constraint) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource (read a file or directory listing) and names the domain (AI knowledge vault), which separates it cleanly from the write and search siblings. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the read/write contrast is self-evident.

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 mention of 'file or directory listing' implicitly tells the agent the tool has two modes selected by the path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like search, extract, or graph_traverse. Usage must be inferred.

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