info

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only nature ('Read a specific target'), details return content per target type, explains default limit clamping to 200, and mentions windowing with offset/limit. It does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or require permissions, but the behavioral details are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 moderately concise, packing many details into a few sentences. While all sentences contribute value, the text is somewhat dense and could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for quick scanning. Still, it avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema to cover return values, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior for both symbols and files, including default mode, limit clamping, and disambiguation. It lacks handling of not-found cases or errors, but covers the main use cases comprehensively.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage (only limit has a description), the description adds significant meaning to all parameters: target (symbol vs file path), mode (outline vs source), file (disambiguation), offset/limit (windowing defaults). It clarifies defaults and behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Read a specific target', specifying that it takes a SYMBOL (node id or name) or a FILE path and returns structural info or source content. It distinguishes itself from generic file reading by advocating use of mode='source' instead of opening the file directly.

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 guidance on when to use each mode: outline for cheap structural overview, source for actual content with line numbers and import information. It also explains when to use the file parameter to disambiguate symbol names. However, it does not compare this tool to its siblings (relations, search), which is a minor gap.

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