qcli_docs_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: the payload is markdown with code samples, and a non-matching topic does not error — it returns a topic listing instead. That fallback behavior is the kind of thing an agent can't infer from annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, how to address a topic, and the fallback. The most important information (what you get back) is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 single-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format, the three addressing modes, and the failure path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value on top by specifying that matching is case-insensitive and that a bare section name returns the entire section — semantics not present in the schema's one-line parameter description.

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 topic of the Qodalis CLI plugin-development guide in full (markdown with code samples).' The 'in full' framing implicitly separates it from qcli_docs_search, but the search sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference rather than explicit.

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?

Gives rich guidance on HOW to form the argument (case-insensitive heading, 'Section › Topic', or section name) and what happens on a miss, but never says when to pick this over qcli_docs_search — e.g. 'use search first when you don't know the heading.' Usage is implied, not stated relative to alternatives.

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