Retrieve the beginning of a BioHarbor text output file from a tool result's files list to inspect results without loading the entire file.
Read (the start of) a text output file produced by a BioHarbor tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | A path from a tool result's `files` list. | |
| max_bytes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the read is partial ('the start of') and restricted to text output files, but it does not explain the max_bytes limit, truncation behavior, permission requirements, or error cases.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or vague filler. It communicates the core operation and its partial-read nature immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, the description leaves gaps around max_bytes semantics and exact usage context that an agent would need when invoking the tool.
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 description coverage is only 50%: path is documented in the schema, but max_bytes is not. The description's '(the start of)' hints at byte limits but does not explain max_bytes or add any path semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (read) and resource (text output file produced by a BioHarbor tool), and clarifies that only the start of the file is read. It distinguishes the tool from the computation-oriented siblings, which do not read output files. It stops short of a 5 because it does not name or contrast any alternative file-reading path.
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 phrase 'produced by a BioHarbor tool' implies the tool is used on files returned in tool results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Usage is therefore only implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.