read_project_file

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'safely' without elaborating on permissions, error handling, or output format. It does not disclose behaviors like handling non-existent files or line range validity. Given the absence of annotations, the description does not adequately cover behavioral traits.

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 states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool is simple (read a file) and has a complete schema, but the description lacks details on the output format (does it return the full text with line numbers? only the requested line range?) and error behavior. Without an output schema, the description should clarify these aspects.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the phrase 'with line numbers' and 'within the project', which slightly enhances context but does not explain start_line/end_line behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a clear verb 'reads' with a specific resource ('contents of a specific file within the project') and mentions line numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_tree (tree structure), search_codebase (searching), and inspect_tech_stack (tech stack).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the siblings or provide exclusions. It implies usage for reading file contents, but lacks clear contextual guidance such as 'use for viewing file source'.

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