brain_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles behavioral transparency. It discloses the authority field can indicate 'archived' or 'superseded' notes, advising caution. It also explains the behavior when a section heading is not found (returns list of available headings), which is critical for agent decision-making.

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?

Three well-crafted sentences with no redundancy. The most critical information (what the tool does, path format, section usage, authority warning) is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers return values (markdown, authority, backlinks) and edge cases (missing section). Given the low parameter count (2) and 100% schema coverage, no additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it clarifies path format with an example, explains that section matching is case-insensitive by prefix, and notes cost implications. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Read a note' and specifies the exact content returned (full markdown, authority, backlinks). It distinguishes itself from siblings like brain_write and brain_edit by focusing on reading, and the section parameter usage is explicitly described, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 advises to check the returned 'authority' before acting, and explains when to use the section parameter (for cheaper reads on long documents). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., brain_search, brain_list), it provides strong contextual guidance for usage.

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