read_log_range

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it reads forward from start_line, stops early when exceeding max_chars and provides a continuation call so nothing is lost, clips lines to max_line_chars (0 = verbatim), and auto-downloads the log if missing. This is exemplary transparency for a file-read operation.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, each serving a purpose: purpose, usage/behavior, and parameter details. Front-loaded with the main action, zero redundant phrasing, and every sentence adds value. Ideal structure for agent consumption.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return details), the description covers all necessary context: usage scenarios, parameter behaviors, auto-download, early termination, and a hint about continuation. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains start_line directionality, the max_chars truncation behavior with continuation, and max_line_chars semantics (0=verbatim). It does not explicitly define end_line inclusivity or the exact format of the continuation call, but the core parameters are meaningfully clarified. Strong compensation for the schema gap.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource pairing ('Read a specific range of lines from a build log') and immediately distinguishes its role from nearby siblings: it explicitly mentions 'search_log' and positions itself as a window-widening or earlier-section reader. This makes the intended use unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to widen the window around a line number that search_log reported, or to inspect an earlier section') and even excludes an alternative ('no need to call download_log first'). It does not name read_log_tail as a contrast for tail-reading, but the context of 'earlier section' implies the distinction. Slight room for more explicit alternatives, but strong overall.

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