ide_read_buffer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key trait that unsaved changes are included when available, which is valuable. However, it does not mention behavior when no buffer exists, error cases, or whether it falls back to saved file content, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource immediately and adds a valuable qualifier in parentheses, earning its place.

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 relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description omits usage guidance and parameter clarification. It covers the core behavior and key nuance, but leaves gaps that could be filled with a sentence about when to use it versus read_file or a note about error handling.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of workspaceId or path beyond their names. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no detail about formats, requiredness, or their roles, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 an IDE buffer, which is a specific resource distinct from reading a file from disk. The parenthetical 'includes unsaved changes when available' differentiates it from sibling tools like read_file by highlighting the in-memory buffer behavior.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need buffer content including unsaved changes) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Context from siblings suggests read_file is for disk reads, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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