read_passage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what is returned ('the full text ... as DigUp read it'), but says nothing about failure modes for a stale or invalid segment_id, nor how the context parameter expands results.

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 short sentences with the resource and key argument front-loaded. The second sentence is close to redundant with the first but does clarify the granularity of the returned text, so it earns partial credit.

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 does discharge its duty to say what comes back (full page/passage/code text). Gaps remain: nothing about invalid or expired segment_ids, nothing about how context>0 changes the shape of the response, and no routing versus the other read 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the code and context semantics. The description only restates that segment_id identifies the search match, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the text of a digup search match') and pins it to a segment_id, which is more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling read_file, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one retrieves passage text versus file text.

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?

'Read the text of a digup search match (segment_id)' implies a search must happen first and that this is a follow-up fetch, but the dependency is only implied, not stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of read_file as the alternative for non-search content.

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