read_cvlac

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a scope note that list results include every JMesa page and that output is suitable for comparison, but gives no pagination, volume, or failure behavior. Adding some context on top of annotations merits a 3.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause about JMesa pages is slightly cryptic but still earns its place by clarifying output scope.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It is adequate but leaves the key ambiguity unresolved: how it differs from read_cvlac_detail and what 'five kinds of technical production' maps to in the enum.

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 100% and the single section parameter is fully enumerated with a documented default, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's section list ('articles, books, chapters, theses, juries') maps only loosely to enum values and adds no syntax or default details. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (current CvLAC sections) and enumerates the content types returned (articles, books, chapters, theses, juries, technical production). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling read_cvlac_detail, so an agent must infer which read tool to pick.

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?

"Returns existing items for comparison" implies the intended workflow (fetch current state before diffing/updating), which is a useful usage hint. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., read_cvlac_detail vs read_cvlac) is given, leaving selection to inference.

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