Read a game/workspace source file

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 does not disclose that reading is a non-destructive operation, what happens if the file is missing, whether path is case-sensitive, or what the return format is. The mention of line range is the only behavioral hint.

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 concise—two sentences—with the core purpose front-loaded and an example serving as a concrete anchor. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return format (full file content? line array?), the semantics of line ranges (inclusive boundaries), error conditions (missing file, out-of-range lines), and any limits (file size). An agent would need to infer or probe these details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It mentions 'relative path' and 'optional line range' but does not clarify that from_line defaults to 1, what to_line does (inclusive/exclusive), or how they interact. The example path helps relative_path but not the line 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('file from the workspace'), specifies allowed packages ('main' or any mod), and provides a concrete example path. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_game_source (searching vs. reading a known file).

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 context by describing read scope and optional line range, but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_game_source or when not to use it. It gives context but no explicit routing.

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