il_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It discloses encoding (GBK) and line ending normalization (LF), which are important. However, it does not specify whether the tool returns the raw content, handles missing files, or errors on non-plain-text. For a read-only tool, the absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable, but the return behavior is left implicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that specifies the verb, resource, and key format details (plain-text, GBK, LF). No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is essentially complete. It covers the file type (plain-text .IL), encoding, and newline handling. It does not mention error conditions or the return type, but those can be inferred (returns the text). The absence of an output schema and the low complexity mean the description does not need to explain much more.

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% – both parameters (project and file) have descriptive comments. The tool description itself does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, but it reinforces that the file is a plain-text .IL POU. Since the schema already documents the parameters clearly, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific action: read the IL source text of a plain-text .IL POU. It also notes the file is plain-text and specifies encoding (GBK) and line endings (LF), which makes the purpose unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the resource and verb are so specific that an agent can easily distinguish it from the copy/probe siblings.

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?

The description implies its use case: reading plain-text .IL source files. It does not explicitly say when to use this over siblings like il_patch_copy or ld_to_il_copy, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., not for binary files). However, the 'plain-text' qualifier and the read action give enough implicit guidance for a simple tool.

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