Read analysis report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the flat YAML output shape, the view-scoped (not project-wide) behavior, and 'no undo step.' Return details are not repeated, which is fine since an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource+format, followed by scope and dependency information that earns its place. Slight redundancy: 'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint and 'It takes no parameters' restates the empty schema, but the overall structure is tight and non-padded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, output format, the view-state prerequisite tools, and the fact that no undo exists. Nothing material 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and the baseline is 4. The description sensibly confirms 'It takes no parameters,' which is the only parameter-relevant statement available.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+format: it 'Reads the resource or capacity view currently visible as a flat YAML report.' It also defines the scope precisely ('that one visible view, not the whole project'). It does not contrast against the sibling report tool rillsoft_variance_report_get, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear operational context: which view is read comes from rillsoft_view_state_get and rillsoft_view_state_apply switches it, so the agent knows the prerequisite chain. However it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rillsoft_variance_report_get, so no explicit exclusions are present.

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