arno.read_range

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavioral details: an end line past EOF reads to the end, dependency reads use a specialized read-only path, and multiple ranges can be batched in one call. It does not mention token budget truncation or the continue mechanism in the natural-language description, though those are documented in the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, practical detail: whole-file reads, open-ended ranges, dependency paths, and batch syntax. There is no filler or repetition, and the example is compact and directly relevant.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation modes, path forms, and range behavior. The budget and continue parameters are left to the schema, which documents them sufficiently. A small gap is that the natural-language description does not warn about token-limited truncation, but an agent reading the schema would still call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the dep:<name>/<path> form for paths, the whole-file behavior when lines is omitted, and a realistic multi-range example. Budget and continue are not enriched, but they do not need to be for the baseline.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Read a file verbatim, whole or by line range') and immediately positions the tool as a replacement for `cat` and `sed -n`. The concrete examples and dep:<name>/<path> syntax clearly identify what it is for, and the read-only intent distinguishes it from sibling editing tools like arno.insert and arno.replace_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?

It gives strong usage guidance: omit line numbers for whole files, use it for config files with no symbols, handle open-ended ranges, and read dependency source via dep:<name>/<path>. It does not explicitly state when to prefer arno.grep or arno.find instead, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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