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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: text is bounded, reads can be resumed, and binary content is never returned. The only minor gap is the use of 'next_offset' while the input parameter is named 'offset'.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads the core action and follows with the key constraints and sibling reference.

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 three-parameter schema, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers provenance of paths, bounded/resumable reads, and the binary-content limitation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents paths, offset, and project_id. The description reinforces provenance by saying paths should come from list_files, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading exact current source files. It also scopes the tool to an app created by deploy_files and distinguishes it from list_files by requiring paths from that sibling.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use paths returned by list_files and target an app created by deploy_files. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond list_files, so it falls short of a 5.

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