ue5_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly conveys that this is a read operation and notes the line-range limiting behavior for large files. Missing details include return format, error behavior, and whether the file must already exist, but the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional line-range capability is stated as a secondary supporting detail. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple read tool with complete schema documentation and no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what is read, where it is read from, and how to limit output. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the return format or explicitly routing to alternatives, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optional line-range semantics by mentioning it for large files, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for startLine and endLine.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource: a C++ source file in the project Source directory. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like ue5_read_log and ue5_search_source without needing an explicit comparison.

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 clearly scopes the tool to C++ files in the Source directory and mentions optional line ranges for large files, which implies when it is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as ue5_search_source for locating content or ue5_read_log for logs.

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