read_gradient

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Read'. It doesn't state that the tool is read-only, describe return format, or mention any side effects or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool reading a resource file.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but it's under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful content. While concise, it misses opportunities to provide useful context, making it average for this dimension.

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 simple schema (one param) and no output schema, the description should explain what reading a Gradient resource entails or what the return value represents. It does neither. Additionally, it doesn't differentiate itself among the many sibling read tools, leaving the agent without enough context to judge suitability.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'path' with a description ('Path to .tres Gradient resource'), so the schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource type ('Gradient resource'), which is distinct from generic read tools like read_resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other read_* sibling tools, and the wording closely mirrors the tool name, adding little new information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_resource or other resource-specific readers. There are no mentions of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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