read_content

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

The description discloses useful behaviors such as per-page extraction, format handling, and saving binary files locally. However, it directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, since saving binary files to ~/Downloads/brightspace/<course>/ is a local side effect on the environment.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates supported formats and the binary-file destination. There is no filler, repetition of schema content, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 covers core extraction behavior, formats, and the binary fallback path, but with six parameters and no output schema it omits the returned text shape/paging behavior and does not distinguish itself from content-related siblings. It is adequate for simple calls but not fully complete for a complex extraction tool.

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 descriptions cover course, dir, save, and offset, while topicId and maxChars are undocumented, and the description does not fill those gaps. It adds format-level context and 'Read a content topic' gives topicId a minimal semantic anchor, but it never explains how offset, maxChars, dir, or save affect the read.

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 action ('Read'), a clear resource ('a content topic'), and the concrete behavior (extracts text from PDF/DOCX/PPTX/HTML/ZIP and plain text/code). This is specific enough to distinguish it from content-related siblings like get_content or download_file, even without naming them.

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 the tool (when text content from a topic's files is needed) and what file types it handles, but it never names alternatives like get_content or download_file or states when not to use them. With several content-related siblings, the routing guidance is left mostly to inference.

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