read_code_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Reads' implies a non-mutating operation, it says nothing about error behavior (e.g. out-of-range lines, missing file), size limits, or encoding, all of which matter for a line-range reader. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. The trailing 'in the Pumpkin API or WIT interface' is useful scoping rather than filler, though the sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 tool is simple and its three required parameters are fully documented in the schema, so little is needed. However, with no output schema the description does not indicate what is returned (raw lines, line-numbered, etc.), which would help an agent use the result correctly.

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%: the schema already documents filePath, startLine (1-indexed), and endLine (inclusive). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Reads) and resource (a range of lines from a file), with a scope constraint (Pumpkin API or WIT interface). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the obvious alternative read_api_file, so the boundary between reading a range and reading a whole file is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of read_api_file or search_api_code. The 'range of lines' phrasing implies a targeted-read use case, but no explicit condition or exclusion is stated, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the siblings' names alone.

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