rlm_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Read specific lines.' It does not disclose whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. No behavioral traits beyond a simple read are mentioned.

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 one sentence, which is concise, but it is too minimal. It fails to provide sufficient information, so conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description should explain the source of documentation and line range constraints. It is incomplete, lacking details on valid ranges, default document, or output format.

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?

The input schema has two integer parameters (start_line, end_line) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning about what these lines refer to (which document, file, or context), leaving the agent without necessary context to fill parameters correctly.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'specific lines from documentation', providing a clear basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rlm_get_chunk or rlm_context, which may also read content.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it fits among similar tools.

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