read_body

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output fields, the max_chars cap with truncated flag, and the best-effort fallback behavior when file/offsets are unavailable. It does not state explicit error behavior or read-only non-mutation guarantees, but 'read' plus the detail given is strong.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the move, the second specifies input and output shape, and the third covers fallback behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The description gives enough to call the tool successfully: accepted identifiers, return content, truncation behavior, and fallback. It doesn't describe invalid-input behavior or what happens if neither name nor node_id is provided, but that is a minor gap given the rest of the detail.

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 only 25%, so the description compensates: it explains that name or node_id identify the function, and that max_chars caps output with a truncated flag. Format is still left to the schema enum, but the description covers the otherwise underspecified key parameters.

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 clear action ('Read') and resource: 'a function/method's real source (L3)'. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic file-reader siblings and explicitly contrasts itself with cat.

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 establishes this tool as the default 'open this and read it' move for function/method source, saying the agent should not fall back to cat. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use sibling tools like open_file.

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