read_core_snapshot_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that reads are bounded (via max_bytes), require an exact indexed regular-file path (not directories or fuzzy paths). However, it does not describe error behavior, what happens if the path is missing, or whether offset is supported. The output schema presumably covers return format, but other behavioral details are absent.

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, tightly packed sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then specifies the key constraints, making it immediately understandable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential input context: exact path, regular-file constraint, and bounded read. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of how this relates to sibling tools (e.g., inspect_core_snapshot for metadata) to help with tool selection, so it is not perfect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by relating 'bounded byte range' to max_bytes, 'path' to an exact indexed regular-file path, and 'ExileAPI snapshot' to snapshot_name. However, it does not explain path format, max_bytes limits, or the fact that max_bytes has a default, leaving gaps in full parameter understanding.

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 (Read), the target (a bounded byte range), and the specific resource (an exact, indexed regular-file path in an ExileAPI snapshot). It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'core snapshot' and 'regular-file path', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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: this tool is for reading file content from a core snapshot when you know the exact path and want only a bounded range. But there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus sibling tools like inspect_core_snapshot or read_game_snapshot, and no exclusions are stated.

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