arcana_read

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that content is concatenated chunks in order, which is useful. But lacks details on error handling, idempotency, auth, or what happens for invalid URIs.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states core action, second specifies the argument. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with 11 sibling tools, the description lacks context on when to use this vs. searching or grepping. Could mention it's for direct URI-based reads.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description adds the URI format 'arcana://' which clarifies the expected scheme. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read full content of a resource' which distinguishes from siblings like arcana_ls (list) or arcana_stat (metadata). The phrase 'concatenated chunks in order' adds specificity. However, 'resource' is vague and could be clearer within the arcana domain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The description implies use when full content is needed, but does not mention when not to use (e.g., for large resources) or contrast with arcana_search, arcana_grep, etc.

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