get_readme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool fetches text and can target a version, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or return format details. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 wasted words. It directly states the action and resource, and the parenthetical about version adds useful precision without clutter.

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?

With no output schema and only a brief description, the tool's essential purpose is clear, but return format, error behavior, and truncation (truncateAt) are not mentioned. Given the sibling context, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that version is optional, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and a clear resource 'README text' for an npm package, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_package_info or get_usage_snippet. It also specifies optional version targeting, clarifying exact scope.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving README content, giving the user a direct context of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 but is still clearly contextualized.

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