read_knowledge_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'bounded original text slice' constraint, which is useful behavioral context (it reads a slice, not the whole file). It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior, but given annotations, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some value without contradicting structured data.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the exclusion. Every word 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?

With annotations covering safety, a full input schema, and an output schema (per context), the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks explicit notes on pagination or error cases, but for a simple bounded read operation, these are minor and partly covered by the schema. The description is complete enough.

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 all parameters (offset, kb_name, filename, max_chars) have individual descriptions. The description's 'bounded original text slice' phrasing implicitly explains how offset and max_chars relate (bounding the slice), adding slight meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the interplay or defaults, so it does not significantly exceed the baseline for high 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('knowledge base file'), and a bounded scope ('a bounded original text slice'), and explicitly excludes DeepTutor answer generation, distinguishing it from that sibling. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from answer-generation tools.

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 gives clear context for use: reading a bounded original text slice from a knowledge base file. It also provides an exclusion ('no DeepTutor answer generation'), which prevents misuse for answer generation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like search_knowledge_file or list_knowledge_files or state when to use this over them, so it falls short of full guidance.

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