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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: the 2000-line/~2MB cap, node-type-dependent line numbering, and the multi-space auth_verify requirement. The generic ChangeRequests sentence is not directly relevant to a read operation, so one point is held back.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in a tight first sentence, followed by useful grep/sibling context and auth instructions. The description is dense but includes a somewhat extraneous ChangeRequests sentence that does not describe this read tool's behavior.

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?

For a read-range tool, the description covers node types, line semantics, response cap, and multi-space auth prerequisites, so an agent can invoke it correctly in most cases. It does not describe the response shape beyond lineCountCapped, but no output schema exists to close that gap.

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 has meaningful descriptions for endLine, startLine, and targetSpaceId, covering 75% of parameters. The description adds cross-node line-semantics context that the schema cannot express, though nodeId is left undocumented and relies on the title/context to convey.

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 title and description state a specific operation — reading a line range from a node's content — and the description sharpens it: "from any node type that stores content — doc, html, whiteboard, workflow." It also positions the tool against a sibling (nodes.get), so an agent can tell them apart from the description alone.

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 is explicit about when to reach for it: it is the follow-up to a Unified Grep match with source: nodes, and should be used instead of nodes.get when only the lines around a match are needed. It also notes it replaces GET /docs/{nodeId}/lines for doc-only access, giving a clear migration/selection signal.

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