ds_view_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination and the text-only constraint, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details like error behavior on missing resources, maximum line limits, or the output format (e.g., whether lines are numbered). This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact: a one-line summary followed by a formatted Args list. Every word contributes, and the structure is scannable. It achieves strong clarity in minimal space.

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 simple paginated read tool, the description covers the inputs and the key constraint (text files only). It doesn't describe the return value format, which could matter, but the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the Args section fully explains each parameter: resource_id's source, skip_line_num meaning 'Number of lines to skip', and limit as 'Max lines to read'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 opens with 'View resource file content' which specifies a clear verb and resource, and adds qualifiers 'paginated, text files only' that distinguish it from sibling tools like download or update. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 'text files only' clause gives a clear exclusion, implying this tool is not for binary or non-text resources. The parameter source context for resource_id ('from ds_list_resources or ds_get_resource_by_name') also hints at usage. However, no explicit alternatives are named for other file actions, stopping short of a full 5.

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