Read authorized original source files by ID, repository path, or snapshot with exact byte continuation for token-budgeted pagination.
Read an authorized original source by ID or repository path, with exact byte continuation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| sha256 | No | ||
| snapshot | No | a repository snapshot digest: read a file as that snapshot held it | |
| source_id | No | ||
| line_count | No | ||
| start_byte | No | ||
| start_line | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the source must be 'authorized' and that reading supports 'exact byte continuation,' but it omits error handling, pagination behavior, and what happens when multiple lookup parameters are provided.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The lookup modes and the byte-continuation constraint are stated compactly and earn their 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?
For a tool with seven parameters, zero required fields, no output schema, and very low schema documentation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how to disambiguate among source_id, path, sha256, and snapshot, nor how line-based and byte-based parameters relate.
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 only 14% (snapshot is the sole documented parameter), so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping 'ID or repository path' to source_id/path and by connecting 'byte continuation' to start_byte/line_count/start_line, but sha256 and the interactions among the seven optional parameters remain unexplained.
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 names a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (authorized original source), and two lookup modes (ID or repository path). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from likely siblings like repository_files.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repository_files, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The phrase 'with exact byte continuation' hints at a continuation use case but does not tell the agent when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.