Read editor buffer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: returned content reflects the in-memory buffer including unsaved edits, which is not encoded anywhere in structured fields. It says nothing about line-range behavior, error handling for nonexistent paths, or output shape, so it sits at adequate rather than rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with the differentiating behavior ('as Android Studio currently has it') front-loaded and the preference rule following. Nothing is wasted.

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 output schema and three parameters, the description covers the core semantic (fresh buffer state) and the routing rule, but leaves two of three parameters and the return format unaddressed. An agent can call it correctly for the common case, but not for ranged reads.

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 only 33% — just 'path' is documented as 'Absolute file path'. The description never mentions that startLine/endLine exist or that the read can be scoped to a line range, so an agent could easily miss partial-read capability. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 (read) and resource (file) plus the crucial qualifier 'as Android Studio currently has it, including unsaved edits', which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It distinguishes from disk reads but does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like ide_editors or ide_open, which also expose editor 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: prefer this over reading from disk when the user is editing in the IDE. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it — e.g. versus ide_editors for enumerating open buffers or ide_find_files for locating a path.

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