Read library resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: validation, rendered contents, and refusals match native resource reads, and stale revisions or unavailable evidence require following next_step.

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 dense sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage routing and behavioral caveats in a logical order.

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 one-parameter, read-only resource tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers selection, alternatives, validation/refusal behavior, and next_step handling, though it does not fully describe the return shape since there is no output schema.

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% and already documents the uri parameter, including preserving revision and paging components. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by enumerating the kinds of resources the URI may address: card, excerpt, corpus chunk, shelf page, or brief.

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?

States a specific verb and resource scope: reading bounded saved-library cards, excerpts, chunks, shelf pages, or briefs from a uoink URI. It also distinguishes this from get_uoink_corpus and from search/retrieval tools that supply the URI.

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 says to use this as the tools-only equivalent of resources/read after search_library or get_library_item supplies a URI. It names the alternative get_uoink_corpus for full documents instead of chunk paging, and tells the agent to follow next_step on stale revisions or unavailable evidence.

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