Read a manual page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns the full text of exactly one page, and explains the ambiguity resolution behavior. This is transparent for a read-only tool, though it does not mention error cases or output formatting.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause earns its place. The example and ambiguity note are efficient and useful without redundancy.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers name, optional section, and ambiguity resolution. It could mention what happens when the page is not found, but that is a minor omission.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by giving a concrete example ('name="read", section="2"') and by explaining when the optional section parameter should be supplied due to ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: 'Read the full text of one 4.2BSD manual page by name and optional section.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_manpages or search_manpages, which list or search rather than read a specific page.

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 provides clear context for use, including how to disambiguate when a name exists across sections ('If the name is ambiguous across sections, give the section'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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