kcsc_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: tables are preserved, formulas and symbols appear only as figures because the original is an image, and the tool does not invent formulas. It also explains the max_chars default and warns that calculations based on this text are from memory, requiring verification via kcsc_audit. This is comprehensive and honest.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose sentence, parameter explanations in bullet points, and a warning note. Each sentence adds value, but it is slightly longer than necessary. However, the length is justified by the need to explain four parameters with no schema support. Front-loaded with the purpose.

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 (4 params, 1 required), the lack of annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. It even includes a verification recommendation. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must fully document parameters. It does so thoroughly: code with examples, section with behavior (inclusion of sub-items, default to entire document), code_type with when to use, and max_chars with default. This compensates entirely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool reads the standard original text in clause units, a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing detail: tables are preserved as tables. This differentiates it from sibling tools like kcsc_search (search) and kcsc_outline (outline) without needing to open schemas.

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 gives explicit context: it recommends using kcsc_outline to select a clause first, and mentions kcsc_audit for citation verification. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use for reading, not for search', the action 'read' and the parameter explanations imply the intended use. The guidance on when to use alternatives is present but not exhaustive.

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