cascade_remote_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the READY-handle precondition and the offset/limit line-based read model, but does not state read-only semantics, behavior on an invalid handle, or what a failed read returns. Useful but incomplete disclosure for a read operation.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose and the handle prerequisite front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is terse enough that a little more detail could fit without harming readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return-value expectations; it only hints at numbered lines via 'with line numbers' and says nothing about error or empty-file behavior. Adequate for invoking the tool, but thin for a tool with no structured return contract.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented (path, limit, handle, offset 1-based) directly in the schema. The description's 'offset & limit with line numbers' merely restates what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a file from an opened remote target'), which clearly separates it from sibling listing/search operations like cascade_remote_ls, grep, and find. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself beyond the implicit file-contents scope.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('Requires a READY handle returned by cascade_target open'), which tells the agent when the tool is usable. It offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives such as cascade_remote_grep for searching or cascade_remote_ls for listing, so usage is only partially framed.

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