sassy_read_multiple

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the exact header format, the JSON-array-with-comma-separated-fallback behavior for paths, and the per-file error handling that does not abort the batch. This is meaningful additional disclosure.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines behavior and output format, the second clarifies the parameter format and error semantics, the third gives usage guidance and the sibling alternative. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description covers the parameter format, error behavior, and usage boundaries. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return type beyond the header format, but the output schema exists and the description's header example is enough for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that paths is a JSON array of file paths and that it falls back to a comma-separated string if not valid JSON. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property name 'paths' and its string type. It doesn't give examples, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 ('reads'), a resource ('several files at once'), and the output format (concatenated under headers). It also distinguishes itself from sassy_read_file by noting the offset/length paging alternative, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('pull a handful of small files in one call') and when to use the alternative ('use sassy_read_file with offset/length for paging through a large file'). This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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