paste_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does mention 'ephemeral' and 'TTL-bound', which are key traits, and clarifies it is not a vault. However, it does not disclose the return format, error behavior (e.g., expired id), or any access restrictions. For a simple read tool, some disclosure exists but more could be added given the lack of annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key qualifier ('ephemeral', 'TTL-bound') immediately, followed by a clarifying negative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core behavior (retrieve ephemeral paste) and the negative constraint. Minor gaps include not specifying the return format or behavior on expired ids, but these are not critical for a trivial read operation. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema with min/max length and a description. The tool description adds the context 'TTL-bound' but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameters and the description does not compensate further.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'ephemeral 54ch10 paste by id', which is specific and distinguishes it from other sibling tools. The added 'NOT a vault' clarifies it is not a persistent storage tool, further differentiating its purpose. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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?

While the description implies usage (you need an id from paste_write), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'NOT a vault' but this is a property, not a usage condition. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools (like paste_write) are provided, so an agent gets no guidance on selection among related tools.

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