claude_read_persistence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well by disclosing line-based offset/limit behavior, automatic truncation at Settings.persistence_max_file_bytes, and the truncated flag in the response. It does not cover error handling or file-not-found behavior, but the most operationally surprising behavior is disclosed.

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?

Compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a short bullet list for optional parameters, and a single note about truncation. Nothing is redundant with the schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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 covers parameters, defaults, and truncation behavior, and an output schema exists for return-value details. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling tools or clarifying when load_persistence_context is preferable, but nothing critical is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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 compensate for the schema. It explains all parameters clearly: file choices and default, offset being 0-indexed, and limit accepting None for no limit. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Read one of the three persistence files') and enumerates the allowed files: agents, projects, memory. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling claude_load_persistence_context, which may also involve reading persistence data.

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 when to use the tool: when raw contents of the agents, projects, or memory persistence files are needed. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as load_persistence_context.

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