read_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature through 'Reads' and lists supported document types, implying it handles those formats. However, it does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or limitations for unsupported files, leaving some ambiguity.

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 well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose, lists supported formats, then documents the parameter and return. It is not overly verbose and every part adds value, though the param/return formatting is slightly repetitive for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no siblings), the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return type. It also mentions supported formats. While it omits error handling, the output schema exists, so the need to detail return values is reduced. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema only defines a string 'filename' with no description, so the parameter documentation in the description is essential. It clarifies that the path can be absolute or relative, adding practical meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 extracts text from a document file, listing supported types (TXT, DOCX, PDF, Excel). It uses a specific verb and resource, but since no sibling tools are provided, it cannot explicitly distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 when to use this tool: whenever a document's text needs to be extracted. It provides clear context (supported formats) but does not mention exclusions or alternatives because no siblings exist. This is strong but not fully explicit in terms of when not to use.

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