fs_read_text_range

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions the '-1 unlimited' behavior, which is ambiguous as to which parameter it applies. It does not explain read-only nature, error handling, line counting conventions, or interaction with line_separator. This is insufficient for a file-reading tool.

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 extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks necessary details and does not follow a structure that front-loads key information. It reads more like a code comment than a tool description.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema clarity), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, the range semantics, or edge cases. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 has very little description coverage (0% except for charset), and the description adds only a vague note about '-1 unlimited', which is not tied to a specific parameter. This provides minimal value in clarifying the roles of file_path, lines_to_skip, max_lines_to_read, or line_separator.

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 verb 'Read' with the resource 'sliced text segment', indicating that it reads a portion of a text file. The tool name 'fs_read_text_range' and the presence of sibling tools like 'fs_read_full_text' and 'fs_read_binary_chunk' help distinguish it as a range-based text reader. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a file path or clarify what 'sliced' means precisely.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of comparing with 'fs_read_full_text' or 'fs_read_binary_chunk', nor any context about when a range read is appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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