octri_read_generated_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention truncation behavior despite max_bytes defaulting to 200000, what happens if the build is unfetched or the path does not exist, or whether content is returned as text or binary. For a zero-annotation read tool this is a thin disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. No padding, though the second sentence is more motivational than informative and could have carried the truncation or prerequisite detail instead.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. It omits result-shape guidance (text vs. binary, truncation signaling via max_bytes) and any statement of preconditions, leaving the agent to guess at behavior for a tool whose siblings already cover listing and fetching.

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 60%: path, max_bytes, and project_id are documented in the schema while build_id and language are bare. The description adds that the build is 'fetched' (context for build_id) but does not clarify what values language accepts or the interaction with project_id fallback, so it only marginally compensates for the uncovered parameters.

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 one generated file from a fetched build.' The 'one generated file' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling octri_list_generated_files, but the description never names that sibling or any other alternative, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 sentence 'This is how to inspect what the generator actually emitted' implies the use case (examining generator output) but gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a build already be fetched/available), and never routes the agent to octri_list_generated_files to discover paths first.

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