basecamp_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via the verb 'Read' and mentions optional comments/images, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or pagination. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., resource content, comments, image URLs). It does not mention response structure or potential errors, and with many sibling tools, lacks usage context to route the agent effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'optional comments and images' which maps to include_comments and include_images, and 'any Basecamp URL' aligns with the url parameter, but it does not provide syntax or format details beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resources 'card or todo', with optional comments and images. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like basecamp_get_card and basecamp_get_todo by supporting any Basecamp URL, making it a more generic reader.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies usage through 'Supports any Basecamp URL' but does not explicitly compare to specialized getters or mention exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool over siblings.

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