read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action (reads and returns contents), and the singular required parameter (filename) limits behavioral ambiguity. Return format is not detailed, but an output schema exists to supplement. No contradictions found.

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 extremely concise: one line of purpose followed by one line for the parameter. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. No fluff.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema. However, it does not specify return format behavior (e.g., returns raw text, structured data, metadata) or mention error cases (e.g., file not found). For completeness, it could hint at what the output schema provides.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'filename: The exact name of the file to read' with an example ('SDK.txt'), adding meaning beyond the schema's property type and title. This clearly helps an agent understand what value to provide.

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 tool reads and returns the contents of a documentation file. The verb 'reads' and resource 'documentation file' are specific. The tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like list_documents (listing) and search_documents (searching).

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 implies usage when a specific file content is needed, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. It mentions the filename argument format, but no guidance on when to use read_document vs search_documents (e.g., if searching, use search_documents).

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