remote_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey read-only semantics, line-range support, and that output carries line numbers for follow-up edits. However, it omits truncation behavior around maxBytes, error handling for missing/unreadable files, and encoding assumptions.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the line-number behavior follows. Slight overlap with schema-documented line-range params keeps it from a 5.

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 4-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is adequate. Gaps remain around encoding, binary files, and what a maxBytes-truncated result looks like, which an agent could need.

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 path, startLine, endLine, and maxBytes are already fully documented in the schema. The description only gestures at line-range reading without adding format or default details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (读取远端文件 / read remote file) and adds scope (line-range reads) plus a distinguishing output trait (line numbers). It clearly reads content, separating it from remote_list/remote_stat/remote_exec, though it does not name the sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by '支持按行区间读取' (line-range reads) and the line-number return for later edits, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives like remote_search or remote_find for locating content first.

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