Read Blizzard UI source file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (reading files and listing directories) and mentions line numbers. However, it does not detail output format, error handling, or restrictions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded to cover missing parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It mentions file reading and directory listing but lacks details on output (e.g., content with line numbers vs. file names) and error conditions. It is incomplete for a tool with four parameters.

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 50%; the description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter with an example, but does not describe 'flavor', 'startLine', or 'endLine' beyond the schema constraints. For the undocumented parameters, the description offers no additional value.

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 reads files (or lists directories) from Blizzard's UI source, with line numbers. The verb 'Read/list' and resource 'Blizzard UI source file' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_source or get_wiki_page.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_source or list_flavors. It only states what the tool does, without context on when it is appropriate or when not to use it.

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