read_entry

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the return format (UTF-8 text vs hex dump of first 512 bytes), the default and hard byte caps, and the truncation header. However, it never says this is a read-only operation, and it is silent on the password parameter — a critical omission for encrypted archives.

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 scope constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences cover output format and limits without padding. Slightly dense with parenthetical detail, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-format sentence is partly redundant, but the truncation and byte-cap behavior is genuinely useful. The gaps are meaningful: nothing explains how encrypted archives or the encoding override are handled, which an agent needs before invoking.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains max_bytes (default 64 KiB, hard cap 1 MiB) and member well, but path, encoding, and password are left completely undefined in both schema and description — three of five parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Preview ONE member') plus the key differentiator: it does not extract the rest of the archive. This cleanly separates it from extract_archive and from list_entries, which is explicitly named as the source of member names.

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?

Implies the workflow (call list_entries first to get the exact member name) and implies the alternative is full extraction, but never states when to prefer this over search_in_archive or extract_archive, and gives no exclusions or error guidance for a wrong member name.

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