st.source.read

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. The phrase 'without leaving that scope' is a meaningful behavioral guarantee about path confinement, which adds real value. However, it does not describe error behavior, file encoding, symlink handling, or the effect of maxBytes, leaving notable 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope restriction. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it may be slightly too terse given the parameter documentation gaps.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to be more self-sufficient. It fails to explain the path format, maxBytes semantics, return value, or error conditions, leaving an agent uncertain about correct invocation despite the clear scope constraint.

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 clarify parameter meaning, but it only repeats the scope enum values already in the schema. It does not explain what 'path' should look like (relative vs absolute), what counts as a source file, or how maxBytes affects the read (e.g., truncation or failure).

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'source file', and it identifies the three allowed scopes. It distinguishes the tool from write operations like st.source.write, but it does not explicitly contrast it with st.resource.read, which is a close sibling.

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 when to use the tool: to read a source file within project-root, st-root, or st-mcp. It gives the scope context but does not state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives such as st.resource.read, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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