View

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the exact truncation limit (16000 characters), the line-number output format, the default directory depth (2 levels), and the ignore rules (hidden files, node_modules). These are precisely the behaviors an agent must know before calling.

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-loads the one-line purpose, then splits the two modes into short, scannable bullet groups. Every bullet carries operational detail (format, range semantics, truncation, depth, ignores) with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-format burden and does so for both modes, including line-number formatting, directory type indicators, depth, and truncation. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with the same 1-indexed inclusive semantics. The description restates view_range's behavior and adds the line-number output format, which is useful but not much beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource (view file contents or list a directory) with the two modes spelled out. The sibling set is entirely mutating (create, str_replace, insert), so this read-only tool is trivially distinguishable.

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 clear branch conditions: file vs directory, and explicitly says to use view_range for reading specific lines. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the read-vs-write split against its siblings is unambiguous.

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