read_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'only read' and describes the output format (structure + strings), which is good. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether it follows references, handles large files, or any error behavior. The 'read only' tag adds safety context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action ('read tabular document'), then provides output details. It's part Russian, part English, which slightly reduces clarity, but it's appropriately sized and not bloated.

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 reads a template and returns structure+strings, but given no annotations and no parameter descriptions, an agent might not know how to fill object_path or template_name correctly. Since only dir_path is required, that's a clue, but still, the description gives no prerequisites or examples. It's adequate but with clear gaps.

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%—the schema gives only field names, types, and defaults, no descriptions. The description does not explain the parameters at all. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, so the baseline 3 for high coverage doesn't apply; however, the needed parameter info is absent, so 3 is appropriate as a neutral score.

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 explicitly states it reads a tabular document (MXL) of a template into structured form, decodes MOXCEL into a tree, and returns canonical text structure and list of string values. This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it as a read operation.

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 implies usage—it's a read-only decode operation returning structure and strings—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use it vs other tools. Since sibling names aren't provided, there's no way to give exclusions, but it still lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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