read_file_chunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a non-destructive read operation with pagination and streaming. While it does not detail error handling or edge cases, it adequately discloses the core behavior.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 explains input parameters and general function but does not describe output format or behavior (e.g., how data is returned, whether pagination state is provided). Given no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions 'cursor and limit_bytes' but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema's detailed definitions (e.g., not explaining cursor format or limit_bytes range).

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 'Reads paginated data from a spilled file (stdout or stderr)', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (shell_exec, shell_info) by focusing on file reading rather than execution or info retrieval.

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 implies usage for streaming large file contents safely but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. The phrase 'safely stream contents' hints at context but lacks clear guidance.

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