read_remote_file

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds the genuinely useful constraint that reads are bounded by range, but says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range offsets, file-size limits, or remote access/permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is correctly omitted, and the slicing intent is communicated. However, with 0% schema coverage and four parameters, the silent max_chars default and the path format are gaps an agent would likely need when calling the tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only covers offset and limit. The path parameter and especially max_chars (a non-obvious truncation cap defaulting to 8000) are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading a slice of a remote file, with the scoping intent ('toujours borne') made explicit. It distinguishes itself from whole-file retrieval, though it never names the obvious sibling (download_from_romeo) or other readers like read_doc.

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?

Gives operational guidance ('precise offset et limit plutot que de rapatrier un fichier entier'), which implies the preferred usage pattern, but offers no when-to-use/when-not versus alternatives such as download_from_romeo, list_dir, or read_doc.

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