read_customization

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

No annotations provided so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior ('Read the contents'), but does not detail return format or potential side effects (though none expected). Adequate but not enriched.

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?

Main purpose sentence followed by Args bullet points. Efficiently conveys information without excess. Could be slightly more streamlined but overall well-structured.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no enums, and output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: parameter roles, reading semantics, and location differences. Completeness is high.

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%, but description fully explains each parameter: type values ('rule'/'skill'), name behavior (ignored for rule, folder for skill), workspace_path as optional, and is_global as read location flag. Greatly adds value over bare schema.

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?

Clearly states it reads a rule or skill file, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools (apply, list, write) by focusing on reading content.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (to read customization files) and explains parameter behavior (name meaning for rule vs skill). Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions, but usage is well implied.

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