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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints, yet the description goes further and discloses real behavioral traits: a per-call cap, files returned in `skipped`, and a single oversized file coming back cut short in `truncated`, with the remedy for each. This is exactly the value-add beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then mode selection, then failure/recovery behavior, then the editing precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it explains the cap, `skipped`, and `truncated` results. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 only 33% (only forgeId documented), so the description must compensate — and it does, defining `paths` as complete files and `views` as 1-indexed line-numbered windows capped at 200 lines. It adds real meaning the schema lacks, though line-window edge behavior isn't fully specified.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read file contents from a forge's current tree.' The scoping to the forge's current tree distinguishes it from sibling readers like read_reference_part and the search_part_files/search_reference_parts searchers.

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?

Explicit mode selection ('Use `paths` for complete files or `views` for windows') and a clear lifecycle trigger ('Call this before editing any file you have not already read'). It routes between its own parameters well, though it never names a sibling tool as an alternative.

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