Reads bounded, numbered UTF-8 lines from a file in an immutable repository snapshot, returning digest and truncation metadata to verify source reads and limit output.
Read bounded numbered UTF-8 lines from a regular file in one immutable repository snapshot, with digest and truncation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| end_line | No | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| start_line | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it discloses UTF-8 encoding, that the target must be a regular file, that the snapshot is immutable, that reads are bounded, and that digest and truncation metadata accompany results. It does not cover error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens with non-regular or binary paths, so it is not fully complete.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (bounded, numbered, UTF-8, regular file, immutable snapshot, digest/truncation metadata) adds distinct information.
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?
For a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable behavioral sketch and notes return metadata, but it omits defaults, error cases, and parameter definitions that an agent would need to call it correctly. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It hints at line bounds ('bounded numbered lines') and byte limits ('truncation metadata'), but it never defines project, path, start_line, end_line, or max_bytes explicitly, nor their defaults, 1-based numbering, or units. This leaves most parameter semantics for the agent to guess.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read bounded numbered UTF-8 lines from a regular file in one immutable repository snapshot.' This makes it distinguishable from list_snapshot_files and search_snapshot_text by specifying line-range reading of a single file rather than listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other content-retrieval siblings.
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 phrase 'Read bounded numbered UTF-8 lines from a regular file,' suggesting the tool is for fetching a slice of file content. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_snapshot_text or get_code_snippet, nor any stated exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.