knowledge_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions reading a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), or output format (e.g., text content). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like what 'read' entails (e.g., returns file content), error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'workspace' and 'path' are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'workspace' or 'path' represents, their formats, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the action ('Read') and resource ('a knowledge file from a workspace'), which clarifies the tool's basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'knowledge_search' or 'knowledge_list', which might also involve reading knowledge files, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 'knowledge_search' or 'knowledge_list'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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