coding_read_code

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

The description names the action `read_code`, implying a non-destructive read operation, but the annotations mark `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`. This contradiction is not addressed, creating significant ambiguity about side effects.

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?

Compact and focused; every sentence adds context or parameter documentation, with no fluff.

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?

Sufficient for a simple dispatch wrapper with an output schema present, but does not explain behavior, return semantics, or relation to sibling tools, limiting operational completeness.

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?

Adds meaningful definitions for `message` (free-text objective) and `inputs` (optional JSON string) beyond the bare schema, though it lacks examples or format details.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific action (`read_code`) and distinguishes it from sibling coding tools via the action name, though it relies on the name rather than an explicit purpose statement.

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?

Provides routing context (JWT, tenant, company) but no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like coding_write_code or coding_run_command; usage must be inferred from the action name.

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