read_java_content

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses capability to read external library source code via specific URI schemes, which is additional context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, size limits, or side effects; for a read tool this is acceptable but could be improved.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb ('Read'), resource ('Java file'), and scope ('including local files and external library source code'). No redundancy, front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers supported URI schemes. Missing explicit statement about return value (likely file content), but inferred from purpose.

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 100% with one parameter. The description 'URI or file path to read' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description. The global description mentions URI types, but param-specific enhancement is minimal.

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 it reads content of Java files, specifying local files and external library source code via jdt:// or jrt:// URIs. This distinguishes it from generic file readers and sibling tools like java_get_hover.

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 implies usage for reading Java file content but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like java_get_hover or java_get_references. No when-not-to-use or alternatives listed.

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