Read a project text file

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the agent knows. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns a SHA-256 edit precondition, which is useful context but does not fully disclose behavior like error conditions, encoding assumptions, or effect on file state. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and wastes no words. Every phrase contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explicitly mention that the returned hash is intended for later edit precondition checks, nor does it note that the tool reads only text files. An agent could call it correctly but might miss the intended workflow integration with sibling patch tools.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'bounded line range' but does not explain startLine and endLine semantics, defaults, or how they interact. For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description falls short of even the baseline minimal value.

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'), a resource ('a text file'), and a bounded line range, plus the return value (SHA-256 edit precondition). This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, though it does not differentiate it from sibling read-like tools such as search_text or list_files.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is likely a pre-edit step for apply_patch, nor does it specify any conditions or exclusions. An agent would have to infer the use case from the return value, which is not ideal.

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