View text or code files by line range and auto-detect UTF-8/GBK/UTF-16 encoding for read-only inspection without modifying content.
只读按行查看文本/代码文件（自动识别 UTF-8/GBK/UTF-16 等编码）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encoding | No | ||
| end_line | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| start_line | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: the operation is read-only, and encoding is auto-detected across UTF-8/GBK/UTF-16. It omits what happens on binary files, output/line-number format, size limits, and behavior when end_line is null.
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?
A single compact sentence with the read-only guarantee and encoding detection front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the documentation gaps elsewhere.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on 4 parameters, the description should explain line-range semantics, output shape, and limits. It covers only the read-only nature and encoding handling, leaving an agent unable to predict what a call returns.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The encoding auto-detection remark hints at the encoding parameter's role, but start_line and end_line — the core of 'by-line' viewing — are never explained (defaults, inclusivity, omitted end_line semantics).
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?
States a specific verb (按行查看 / view by line) and resource (文本/代码文件) plus a read-only constraint. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like rea_patch_text_search or rea_patch_text_apply by the 'view' action, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus rea_patch_text_search, rea_patch_dump, or the apply/verify siblings. Usage is only implied by the word 'view' — no preconditions, no exclusions, no routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.