Alcove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support for large files, implying this handles large content safely. However, it omits error behavior (missing files), return format, and safety profile that annotations would typically cover.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second states key feature. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 3-parameter read operation with complete schema coverage, the description covers the core functionality and pagination. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention error cases (e.g., file not found) or return value format to be fully complete.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds valuable semantic context that offset/limit are specifically 'for large files', helping the agent understand when to use these parameters beyond their technical definitions.

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 uses specific verb 'Read' with clear resource 'documentation file' and mechanism 'by its relative path'. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like search_project_docs (which searches) and get_project_docs_overview (which gets metadata), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 mention of 'offset/limit for large files' provides implicit guidance on when to use pagination parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_project_docs or check_doc_changes, and does not state prerequisites like file existence.

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