readToolFile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: case-insensitive matching, optional .pyi extension, and that the returned signatures are authoritative for executeTool calls. It stops short of error behavior (what happens for an unknown fileName) and does not restate that the operation is non-mutating beyond the verb 'Reads'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and path forms, then constraints, then the workflow sequence. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the two path shapes that also appear in the schema example.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply the return semantics, which it does ('returns the authoritative callable name and arguments'). Workflow and alternatives are covered; the remaining gap is failure behavior for an invalid or unlisted fileName.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: fileName values must come from listToolFiles, matching is case-insensitive, and the extension is optional. startLine/endLine are covered by the schema descriptions, so no further description text is required.

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 ('Reads') and a specific resource (a virtual .pyi stub), and enumerates the two accepted path shapes (servers/<server>.pyi and servers/<server>/<tool>.pyi). It also names the sibling (listToolFiles) that produces valid inputs, so an agent can distinguish it from listToolFiles and getToolDocs immediately.

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 workflow chain: listToolFiles -> readToolFile -> (optional) getToolDocs -> executeTool, plus a concrete condition for escalating ('If the compact signature is insufficient, use getToolDocs'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-an-alternative are stated.

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