coding_read_code

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs beyond scope, return behavior, or what the output schema contains. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short and includes a docstring-style Args section. It is concise but lacks clear structure for an agent to efficiently parse core purpose. Routing information may be extraneous.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the core functionality of reading code—what code, from where, under what conditions. Incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 0%, so description compensates somewhat. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, but overall still vague.

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 states it runs the 'read_code' action but does not clarify what reading code entails. It's a tautology of the tool name and lacks specific verb and resource. Siblings like 'coding_explain_code' and 'coding_search' are not differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisite or context, and sibling tools are not referenced.

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