read_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '读取' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the explicit return shape {loc, text, context} tells the agent what to expect. It could additionally mention failure behavior or permissions, but the non-destructive nature is evident.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose, usage context, and return shape without any wasted words. Every part contributes to helping an agent decide whether and how to call the 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?

For a read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by specifying the return shape. It does not elaborate on the six loc kinds, but the schema enum already covers that, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters themselves; it only describes the return value. The schema's descriptions of path and loc are sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (a specified location), and the scope (original text plus adjacent context), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_structure, but the focus on content and context is distinct enough.

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 gives a clear usage context: it should be used to check the original text and surrounding context before generating new content. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the stated scenario provides actionable guidance.

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