Read theme file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, includes line numbers, and supports slicing, but it does not mention behavior for missing files, default full-file reading, or any pagination/error details. Some useful transparency, but gaps remain.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded, followed by conditional usage guidance and the recommended workflow. Every sentence 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?

The description adequately covers the core read operation, line numbering, range slicing, and the relationship to search_files. It omits explicit handling of errors or nonexistent files, but for a simple read tool without an output schema, this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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 only 33% because start_line and end_line lack descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining that these parameters are for reading a slice of a large file, but it does not clarify edge cases like whether ranges are inclusive or what happens when only one is provided. Partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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 the tool reads a theme file's contents with line numbers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_file, patch_file, delete_file, and search_files that either modify or search instead of reading. The action and resource are specific and immediately understandable.

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 says to use search_files first to locate the relevant region and to pass start_line/end_line for large files. It provides actionable guidance for when to use this tool and how to scope reads, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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