lb_read_text

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the allowed-directory restriction and the UTF-8 requirement. It does not describe output or error behavior, but for a read-only operation with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 short sentences with no filler, with the core purpose and scope front-loaded and the optional parameters stated second. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only tool, the core behavior is covered, but there is no return-value description or explanation of line_offset/line_count semantics, and no output schema to compensate. An agent can call it correctly in basic cases but may misread partial-read behavior without more detail.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must supply meaning. It identifies 'line offset' and 'line count' as supported parameters, but it leaves file_path semantics to the name and does not clarify whether offsets are zero-based, defaults, or how line_count behaves when omitted.

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 names the action (read), the resource (a UTF-8 text file), and a precise scope (inside configured allowed directories). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like lb_read_many_texts and lb_write_text.

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?

It clearly communicates that the tool applies only to files inside allowed directories and that line offset and line count are supported for partial reads. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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