Read a file from Blizzard's UI source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior (reading a file) and the purpose, but it does not mention return format, error handling, line range behavior, or any potential side effects. Since it's a read-only tool, the safety profile is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It gives good context for the purpose and usage, but it does not explain the startLine/endLine parameters or describe the return value. The schema provides partial coverage, but the description leaves important operational details ambiguous.

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 descriptions cover 'path' and 'flavor', but 'startLine' and 'endLine' have no descriptions. The description adds context for 'path' by saying it should come from grep/template_search, but it does not explain the line range parameters at all. With 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the missing parameters but does not.

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's function: reading a Lua or XML file from Blizzard's shipped UI source. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file from Blizzard's shipped interface source'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing paths from wow_ui_grep or wow_ui_template_search.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you need the full implementation in context rather than a single matching line, and directs users to use paths reported by wow_ui_grep or wow_ui_template_search. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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