Read Base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: what the return payload contains, including unrecognized fields, which prepares the agent for pass-through data. It doesn't mention failure modes for missing/invalid files, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, followed by the routing hint. Zero wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value disclosure and does so by enumerating the parsed sections. Complete enough for a single-param read tool, though it could note error behavior for malformed or missing .base files.

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?

Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents 'path' including pattern and length constraints. The description adds no syntax or path-format guidance beyond what structured fields already provide, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Return the parsed contents of a Base file') with enumerated contents (filters, properties, view definitions, unrecognized fields). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from query_base via the recommended sequencing, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use to discover what queries a Base supports') and names the downstream alternative (query_base). Clear context, but no explicit when-not conditions or mention of list_bases as an alternative for discovery.

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