web_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the truncation cap, that a revision and next offset are returned (pagination signal), and that opaque assets are unreadable. It stops short of describing permission requirements or what happens at end-of-file, but the core read behavior is transparent.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The size cap and return shape come first, and the readability exclusion follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description wisely names what comes back (revision and next offset), covering the return-value gap. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge behavior at the end of the file is unstated.

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 file_id, start, and end are already documented as inclusive/exclusive offsets in the schema. The description's mention of 'next offset' adds a hint about pagination continuity but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read), resource (managed HTML/CSS/text file), and an explicit scope cap of 16,384 characters. Clear enough for an agent to distinguish this from write-oriented siblings like web_set_text, but it does not name or contrast with any specific sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the stated 'Opaque assets cannot be read' exclusion, which is a useful when-not condition. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over web_find or web_pages, nor any mention of prerequisites for obtaining a file_id beyond the schema's reference to web_pages.

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