Read ephemeral paste

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the paste is ephemeral, has a TTL expiry, exists solely for agent handoff, and is not a long-term vault. No contradiction exists between annotations and description.

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 short sentences: one states the HTTP GET method and retrieval purpose, the other adds the usage boundary ('Agent handoff only – not a vault'). Each sentence is needed and impactful; no 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core essentials (what to retrieve, the source, and the expiration condition). It does not specify error behavior if the TTL is exceeded, but for this level of complexity it is nearly sufficient.

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% with a thorough description of the 'id' parameter (returned by paste.write, example provided). The description text does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the paste id comes from paste.write and is relevant before TTL, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('retrieve'), a resource ('ephemeral paste'), and the source ('by id from paste.write'), while noting the TTL constraint. It clearly differentiates from the write sibling and from being a vault, so an agent immediately knows what it does.

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 gives clear context: use it for agent handoff before the TTL expires, and explicitly says it is not a vault for long-term storage. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives (e.g., url.open for direct reads), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides enough situational guidance.

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