read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior. It explains the modes and the reference structure, but it confusingly states "Direct resources: none" and "Resource templates: none" while the example uses a URI template, creating ambiguity. It also does not mention error behavior or response details, leaving behaviors unexplained.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage instructions and an example. The "Direct resources: none" and "Resource templates: none" lines add confusion and seem unnecessary, slightly detracting from conciseness.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description fails to resolve the contradiction between the "none" resource lists and the example. It provides sufficient guidance for a basic call, but the contradictory statements leave gaps in understanding the tool's actual capabilities, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the layout of the `ref` object, including `server`, `uri`, `uriTemplate`, and `arguments`, and shows a concrete usage example. The `mode` parameter is also given context (default "read", "preview" for metadata).

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 identifies the tool as reading MCP resources through a projection surface, with explicit instructions for using ref.uri and ref.uriTemplate. It differentiates from sibling invoke by focusing on reading rather than executing/invoking, giving it a distinct purpose.

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 concrete usage directions: how to construct ref.server with uri or uriTemplate, and when to use mode="preview" for metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to `invoke`, so it misses the full "when-not" guidance.

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