read_schematic

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses that the raw file content and a SHA256 digest are both returned, and that malformed files are read rather than rejected — a non-obvious behavioral trait for a diagnostic workflow. Return structure is covered by the output schema, so this is close to sufficient.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action first and the two notable properties (SHA256, malformed-file tolerance) appended. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter read with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is path semantics — how an agent obtains a valid path (e.g., via list_projects) — which is not addressed.

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 sole 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only weakly compensates by implying the path points at a saved .sch file; it doesn't say whether the path is absolute, project-relative, or how to discover valid paths. Baseline 3 for a single required param.

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 and resource: reading the complete saved .sch source, and adds that the SHA256 is returned alongside it. The word 'complete' and 'source' implicitly contrasts with the inspection/preview/validation siblings, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'including malformed files for diagnosis' implies one use case (raw retrieval when a schematic may be broken), which is useful. However, it never says when to choose this over inspect_schematic, preview_schematic, or validate_schematic, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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