read_resource

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that content is returned as a string and binary content is base64-encoded. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in the annotation alone, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise with four sentences, each contributing essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by necessary details, and contains no redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter), the description covers input format and behavior adequately. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description is complete for selecting and using this tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds meaning by differentiating static vs. templated URIs. The schema describes 'uri' generically, but the description clarifies how to form the URI in both cases, providing significant additional semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool reads a resource by URI, distinguishes between static and templated resources, and specifies the return format. The verb 'read' and resource focus provide unambiguous purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_resources or browse_gallery.

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 how to use the tool: provide exact URI for static resources or fill template parameters for templated ones. This gives clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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