Read one bundled documentation file by its docs-relative path, such as guides/abba.md, to view the specific content found by documentation search.
Read one bundled documentation file, by its path relative to the docs folder (as abba_docs_search gives it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | e.g. guides/abba.md |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is bundled/local and that paths are resolved relative to a docs folder, which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for missing files or content size/format.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical supplying only the information needed to construct the argument. No waste.
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 and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where the input comes from. Only minor gaps remain (error behavior on invalid path, textual return format), which are low stakes here.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema example shows the shape (guides/abba.md), but the description adds the missing semantic layer: the path is relative to the docs folder and is the exact value produced by abba_docs_search, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 (one bundled documentation file) with explicit scope, and names the sibling abba_docs_search as the source of the path value. An agent can tell this apart from abba_docs_search and the fiji_module_* tools without opening any schema.
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 establishes the workflow context explicitly: use the path that abba_docs_search returns, resolved relative to the docs folder. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. for module docs vs. API reference), but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.