ia_read_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation is offset/slice-based and is capped at 20,000 characters per call. However, it omits auth requirements, behavior when start is past the end of the text, whether the cap is enforced or truncated, and any error/pagination semantics.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description supplies the operation, the slicing mechanism, the size cap, and the recommended sibling workflow, which is sufficient for an agent to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It conveys the offset concept and the 20,000-character ceiling, which maps to start/length, but never names the parameters, never mentions the length default of 4000 or start default of 0, and says nothing about the required identifier's expected form.

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 and resource ('Read a slice of an item's OCR text') plus the mechanism ('by character offset') and a hard cap ('up to 20,000 characters at a time'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar text-retrieval siblings like nara_extracted_text or si_get_content, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to a prerequisite workflow: 'Use ia_grep_text first to find the offset you want.' That is clear when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling. It gives no when-not or alternate-path guidance (e.g., when to use ia_get_item instead), keeping it below 5.

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