read_manual_excerpt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that max_pages is only applied to PDFs and ignored for TXT files. It lists a potential exception (FileNotFoundError). However, it does not detail exactly how pages are extracted (e.g., starting from page 1) or the format of the returned text. It also vaguely mentions token consumption but lacks specifics like authentication or rate limits. Overall, it provides useful behavioral context but leaves some gaps.

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 structured with a purpose sentence, usage guidance, then parameter descriptions. It is relatively concise but contains slight redundancy (the opening and the 'Returns' line both state reading text). However, every sentence adds information, and the structure aids readability. It earns a 4 for being well-organized without being overly verbose.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, parameter behaviors, a usage scenario, and an exception (FileNotFoundError). It distinguishes from search_documentation, a key sibling. With an output schema existing (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could mention what happens if a non-existent file is specified or how pages are selected. Overall, it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity, but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to both parameters. It clearly explains file_name: 'Manual filename in resources/machine_manuals/ (PDF or TXT)' and max_pages: 'Maximum pages to extract (ignored for TXT files)' with a recommended default. This greatly enhances the bare schema (type only), giving the agent practical guidance on parameter values.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read a text excerpt from a machine manual (PDF or TXT).' It accurately describes the verb (read) and the resource (excerpt from manual). It also distinguishes from a sibling tool, search_documentation, by noting its use for 'consecutive-page reading' vs targeted questions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for consecutive-page reading; for targeted questions prefer search_documentation.' It also advises on parameter usage: 'Start with max_pages=10 and increase only if needed (pages consume tokens).' This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool versus its siblings.

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