hashline_read

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the exact output format, the meaning of the hash, and the importance of reading fresh before edits. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but for a read operation the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output format, and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded with the core action first, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format, hash semantics, and the critical before-edit workflow. It is nearly complete; a minor gap is lack of mention about range usage, though the schema already documents it.

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 both path and range already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it focuses on output format and workflow. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not degrade or conflict with the 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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a file with hashline-tagged lines.' It also explains the return format and explicitly links the tool to hashline_edit, distinguishing it from the sibling tool without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicit workflow guidance: use hashline_edit with the line:hash references, and always read or re-read before editing to get current hashes. This effectively communicates when to use the tool relative to its sibling and sets a clear precondition.

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