read_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns 'class and editor-visible properties', which is useful, but it omits safety implications, error behavior, and what 'editor-visible properties' entails. The read operation is implied, but not explicitly stated as non-destructive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and return information.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the path format, expected return structure, and error behavior. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse the lack of these critical details for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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 has one required parameter 'path' with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'resource file' but does not clarify the expected path format (e.g., res://, absolute, relative) or how it relates to the resource. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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's function: 'Load a resource file and return its class and editor-visible properties'. The verb 'Load' and the specific return values distinguish it from other resource tools like edit_resource or get_resource_preview, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_script or get_resource_preview. The description implies a use case (inspecting resources) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing it over other read tools.

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