read_file_chunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the read is bounded by character count and returns continuation metadata indicating whether more content remains. This goes beyond simple safety declarations, though it doesn't detail edge cases like EOF behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose in 13 words. No filler or redundant information — every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It establishes the chunked reading concept and continuation metadata, but lacks explicit details on how to use offset/defaults or how continuation metadata chains the next call. The output schema may cover return structure, but usage logic remains partially implicit.

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 for parameter meaning. It only vaguely references 'bounded character range', which hints at offset_chars and max_chars but never explains their semantics or the role of server_id. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb (Read) and resource (bounded character range from a text file), and explicitly mentions continuation metadata, clearly distinguishing this from plain read_file. It succinctly captures the tool's unique purpose.

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?

Implied usage for reading large text files in chunks is present ('bounded', 'continuation metadata'), but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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