read_doc

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: max_chars bounds the response, truncated=true requires a follow-up with next_call, offset is relative to the selected range, and expected_sha256 detects page changes between reads. This is rich, useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then pagination behavior. It is dense but well-structured, and every sentence carries actionable information.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers the important pagination, continuation, and integrity-check behaviors. Together with the readOnlyHint annotation, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: start_line/end_line inclusivity and 1-based indexing, max_chars response limiting, offset relativity, and expected_sha256 change detection. The required page parameter's exact identifier semantics are left implicit rather than fully explained.

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: reads the original text of a local ROMEO page. It is clear what the tool does and references search_docs for range arguments, but it does not explicitly differentiate read_doc from other read-oriented siblings such as read_remote_file.

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 clear operational guidance: use read_args from search_docs, or choose start_line/end_line. It also explains how to continue a truncated read. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against alternatives beyond the search_docs integration hint.

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