read_entry_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It honestly describes the return value structure and behavior (reads file, returns lines). It lacks details on permissions, performance, or side effects, but for a read-only tool, the transparency is sufficient.

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 description is concise (~150 words) with a clear structure: main sentence, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative with no waste; it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description provides complete context: parameter meaning, return structure in detail, and the offset's origin. It is fully adequate for the agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by defining 'path' as absolute path to .ng file and 'offset' as byte offset from list_entries/list_menus, adding crucial meaning beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'raw source lines of the entry at a given offset,' making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like 'read_entry' which likely returns structured data, and 'list_entries' which provides offsets.

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 implies when to use this tool (when raw source lines are needed given an offset), but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'read_entry' or 'body_search_guide'. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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