chat.read_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Read' implies a read-only operation, and the description conveys the selection modes. However, it does not disclose interactions between parameters (e.g., using start/end with aroundKeyword/aroundRegex), edge cases, or any potential modifications, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant details. It states the core function clearly and efficiently, every word earning its place.

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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the primary purpose but lacks usage context (when to prefer this over siblings), how optional parameters interact, and what the return value looks like, leaving room for ambiguity in real-world use.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters, including types and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond high-level grouping of keyword/regex to lines, so it does not improve on the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'lines from a session', with two clear modes: specific lines or lines around a keyword/regex. This is distinct from reading an entire session, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like chat.read_session or chat.grep to differentiate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat.read_session, chat.grep, or chat.search. The description only states the function, with no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or competing tools.

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