Read an archived result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only while adding genuinely new behavior: unknown or pruned ids fail with an explicit error, and the return is either a text window or grep-matched lines. It does not cover truncation/pagination behavior of the window itself.

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?

One dense front-loaded sentence plus two short fragments, with zero waste. The essential recovery trigger and return shape come first, and the failure mode follows.

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 4-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape and failure information an agent needs. Only the window-truncation semantics are left implicit.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only the mode distinction (window vs grep) and confirms the id provenance; it says nothing extra about start_line/max_lines interplay beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read back the full original of a shortened result) and ties it explicitly to the sibling that produces the id (call_tool). An agent can distinguish it from call_tool and describe_tool without reading the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use this when a call_tool notice indicates the result was shortened, using the id from that notice. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' clause or a named alternative for non-truncated results, but the context is unambiguous.

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