read_crossproject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses useful operational details: default 500-line cap, line numbers, metadata keys (totalLines, range, truncated), and pagination via offset/limit. It does not explicitly warn that limit/offset returns plain text, but that detail is present in the schema, so the description adds substantial value without contradiction.

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 description is three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance comes second, and the return-behavior detail closes it out efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: what the tool reads, when to prefer alternatives, default output limits, metadata shape, and pagination approach. The schema covers the remaining parameter-level details like 1-indexed offsets and plain-text returns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing workspace as a 'configured workspace root' and explaining that offset/limit operate together for pagination. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read a file from a configured workspace root.' It clarifies this is for companion repos outside the current project workspace, which distinguishes it from current-workspace tools and from sibling write/edit/list/search/run_crossproject operations.

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 explicitly advises using IDE built-in read/navigation tools for files in the current workspace, while reserving this tool for configured external workspace roots. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, even naming the preferred alternative.

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