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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 10-minute expiry of the download URL, the 400-line limit, absolute UTF-16 offsets, and revision-bound rangeToken. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and provides concrete expectations.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose, front-loaded with the core functionality, and no redundant information. The structure flows from general to specific use cases efficiently.

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 the main usage scenarios, including the alternative to edit_file, and given the output schema exists, it is complete for an agent to call correctly. Minor gaps like error handling are not specified but are not critical for basic invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the oneOf constraint (exactly one target: fileId or path) and detailing lineRange's inclusive 1-based startLine/endLine and its effects. projectId is not explained but is a required UUID and its purpose is self-evident.

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 the tool reads an editable project file or returns a signed download URL, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_file and list_files by specifying the read-only nature and two distinct output modes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use lineRange for localized tasks, when to omit it for full files, and when to pass the rangeToken to edit_file. It does not explicitly exclude list_files, but the purpose is clear and the main alternatives are addressed.

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