read_shader

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

The word 'Read' explicitly signals a non-destructive, read-only operation, and 'full source code' indicates the complete return value. With no annotations present, this description carries the burden of disclosing behavior and does so effectively, though it omits details on error handling or path requirements.

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, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. The key action and object are front-loaded, making it instantly scannable.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential return value (full source code) and purpose. It lacks edge-case details like missing files or path formats, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently 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?

The description mentions 'shader file', which clarifies that the 'path' parameter points to a shader file, but it does not specify accepted path formats (e.g., res://, absolute, file extension). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate further to fully define the parameter.

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 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'shader file', making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_shader (modifies) and get_shader_params (reads parameters only) by adding 'full source code'.

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 the complete shader source, which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or conditions for not using this tool, such as when only parameters are needed.

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