smart_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only replacement for read/cat, returns structured output, and is token-efficient. It doesn't fully disclose all behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, dedup behavior) but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical information (purpose and when to use). Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 read tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, token efficiency, and references a related tool. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though it doesn't describe the return format.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 it is for code files, returns code structure (classes, functions, methods with signatures and line ranges), and explicitly differentiates from raw read/cat with token savings. It also names read_symbol as a complementary tool.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('Use INSTEAD OF Read/cat for code files') and when to use an alternative ('Use read_symbol() to drill into specific code'). Provides clear context for selection among siblings.

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