read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses only that output includes line numbers. It says nothing about behavior on out-of-range lines, missing files, permissions, encoding, or the return format, which matters for a file-reading tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that defines the core semantics without waste. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description answers the key indexing question but leaves output shape and edge-case behavior unspecified. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps.

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, and it does partially by defining 'start' and 'end' as 1-based and inclusive. 'path' and the default when start/end are omitted are left undocumented, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 a line range of a file') and even clarifies the output includes line numbers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings (show, outline, list), which likely also read file 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'show' or 'outline', nor on prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the phrase 'line range'.

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