Get instructions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is read-only, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. The word 'current' adds a small contextual detail about the nature of the data (not historical), but otherwise the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotation. It is consistent and provides a minor extra nuance.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. The verb 'Read' is front-loaded, and the resource is immediately clear. It is appropriately sized for such 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?

For a tool with no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its function. It does not specify the return format, but that is not explicitly required and can be inferred from 'Read'. The tool is simple enough that the description covers the essentials.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty. The description does not hinder understanding of parameters, so the baseline score holds.

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 a specific verb (read) and resource (current operator instructions), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb 'read' implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'set_instructions', so it distinguishes without saying so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or why an agent might prefer it over ask_question or set_instructions. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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