Read a note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context not in annotations: retrieval is "straight from disk" and "Never clipped", telling the agent results are raw and untruncated. It omits error behavior for missing paths or out-of-range lines, keeping it below a 5.

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 zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and "Never clipped" plus "straight from disk" does that adequately for a read tool. What is missing is edge-case behavior (nonexistent path, line range beyond file length), a minor gap for a simple read operation.

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%: path is documented in the schema, but start_line and end_line are bare integers with no constraints described. The description compensates partially by framing the tool as fetching "whole or by line range", giving the two range parameters meaning, but it does not clarify inclusivity, whether both are required together, or what happens with only one supplied.

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 (a Markdown file from the notes folder), plus scope (whole file or a line range, straight from disk). It explicitly names the sibling ragdown_recall, so an agent can distinguish this file-fetch tool from the semantic search tool without opening either schema.

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?

"Use it to see the context around a ragdown_recall hit" gives a concrete when-to-use condition tied to the sibling tool, effectively routing the agent between recall and read. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. when no hit is in hand), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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