Read source file

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description aligns with it by stating there is no write access. The line-range note adds slight behavioral context, but the description does not disclose error behavior, output format, or edge cases for the range parameters. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence about write access is a bit redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, but it is not harmful and does not add bloat.

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 simple read tool, the description covers the core operation and hints at the optional line-range capability, while the schema documents the path. However, it omits line-range semantics, return/error behavior, and any guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving minor but real gaps.

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?

The schema only describes the path parameter, leaving startLine and endLine undocumented, so schema coverage is 33%. The phrase 'optionally as a line range' gives basic meaning to the two integer parameters, but it does not specify inclusivity, ordering, defaults, or how they combine, only partially compensating for the coverage gap.

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 a clear verb and resource: reading a file from RAW_ROOT, with an optional line-range behavior. It is clear enough to identify this as the raw source-file reader among the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with raw_list or wiki_read_page.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use raw_read versus alternatives such as raw_list or wiki_read_page. The 'no write access' clause is a constraint rather than a usage trigger or exclusion. The description does not explain the conditions under which this tool should be selected.

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