read

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description adds that it slices from files and returns structured blocks with qname, path, and a context footer. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single paragraph with good front-loading of purpose. It is information-dense but not overly verbose. Could potentially be broken into shorter sentences for readability, but no wasted words.

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 read-only nature and existing annotations, the description fully explains what the tool does, when to use it, how to use parameters, and what the output contains (including structural facts). No gaps.

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 100%, but description adds valuable context: comma-separating nodes, budget shared across nodes, context_lines as padding. Also ties parameters to use case (after find/impact).

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?

Clearly describes returning source code for nodes, sliced by line spans. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find/impact by stating it should be used after those to read code, not to find it.

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?

Explicitly says to use after find/impact, and gives usage example like comma-separating node names. Could be more explicit about when not to use (e.g., for non-code files), but the context is clear enough.

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