read_manual_excerpt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that max_pages is ignored for TXT files, that pages consume tokens, that ctx is unused, and that FileNotFoundError is raised. It could mention read-only behavior explicitly, but 'Read' implies it; the disclosure of token consumption is a notable behavioral trait.

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 docstring is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections, and the guidance is front-loaded. The reference to 'this module's docstring on logging' is a minor detour, but overall every sentence serves a purpose and the text is not bloated.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which the description doesn't need to duplicate), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, return value, and error conditions. It is complete enough to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 fully compensate. It provides clear semantics for file_name (location and accepted formats), max_pages (default, ignored for TXT), and ctx (unused). This far exceeds what the schema offers.

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: 'Read a text excerpt from a machine manual (PDF or TXT).' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by adding 'Use for consecutive-page reading; for targeted questions prefer search_documentation.' This directly differentiates it from the related search tool.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use for consecutive-page reading; for targeted questions prefer search_documentation.' Additionally, it advises to start with max_pages=10 and increase only if needed due to token consumption, which is actionable and context-specific.

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