Read Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: how templated resources must be handled, that content is returned as a string, and that binary content is base64-encoded. This is meaningful context not present in the annotation.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first sentence. The subsequent lines provide essential usage details without unnecessary filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It covers URI construction and return format, so the agent has the key details. It could mention how to discover valid URIs, but that is not critical for this simple read operation.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with a basic description for uri, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how to fill in the URI for static versus templated resources, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'URI of the resource to read.'

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 its URI, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list_resources by focusing on reading a single resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with show_image, so it misses some sibling differentiation.

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 gives conditional instructions for static vs. templated resources, which is useful for constructing the URI correctly. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_resources or show_image, so usage guidance relative to siblings is lacking.

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