Read a line range

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail: lines are 1-indexed, inclusive, and reading is cheaper than the whole file. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid ranges, missing files) or the return format, leaving some ambiguity for a simple read operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences convey the essential information without redundancy. The description is efficiently written and every word 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 simple read-range tool with low complexity, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the operation, range semantics, and cost advantage. The main gap is that no output schema exists, so the return format is not disclosed, which is a minor omission for such a basic tool.

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 description clarifies start and end as an inclusive 1-indexed range, which is beyond the schema's minimum=1 constraint. It does not explain the path parameter or explicitly state that end must be >= start, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action: reading a specific line range of a file, with the scope (start..end) and indexing semantics (1-indexed, inclusive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_context or snapshot, which serve different purposes.

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 partial file reads by noting it is 'cheaper than the whole file,' but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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