get_blender_reference_excerpt

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose read-only semantics and the bounded window, plus the existence of a continuation line, but says nothing about what happens at end-of-file, what the continuation value looks like when exhausted, or how an unknown filename is handled.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction because 'Read only a bounded line window' can be misparsed as 'read-only' rather than 'read only a window', a small ambiguity in an otherwise tight definition.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It hints at the return shape via 'continuation line' yet leaves paging termination and error behavior to inference, which matters for an agent driving a multi-call pagination loop.

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 name, startLine, and maxLines are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds only the conceptual framing of a 'bounded line window' and a continuation pointer, not any parameter-specific meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: reading a bounded line window from a reference. The phrase 'use before requesting full text' implicitly distinguishes it from the full-text sibling get_blender_reference, though that sibling is never named outright.

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?

It gives an actionable sequencing rule ('use before requesting full text'), which tells an agent to sample a window before pulling an entire guide. It does not explicitly name get_blender_reference or state when this tool is the wrong choice, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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