Read Shelf File

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description aligns with by using 'Read'. The description adds minimal context beyond this, not detailing aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or file format handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline score is appropriate, as the description adds little extra behavioral insight.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on parameter meanings and usage context, making it incomplete for full agent understanding without relying heavily on structured fields.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'shelf' and 'file' but doesn't explain what 'shelf_id' or 'path' mean, their formats, or examples. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.

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 'Read' and the resource 'a single file from a shelf', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_shelf_tree' or 'search_shelf', which might also involve reading shelf data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_shelf_tree' for browsing or 'search_shelf' for finding files. It lacks any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving usage unclear.

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