read_file

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

The description discloses that the tool validates the file path first, raises specific exceptions (FileNotFoundError, ValueError), and clarifies that end_line defaults to None for all lines. While no annotations are provided, this adds useful behavioral context beyond 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 uses a clear docstring format with Args, Returns, Raises sections. It is well-organized but slightly verbose (e.g., '0-indexed, inclusive' could be more concise). Still, every sentence is informative.

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?

The tool has 3 simple parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, parameters, and error cases. It lacks details about the exact format of the output string (e.g., 'numbered lines' is vague), but overall it is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), but the tool description explicitly details each parameter: file_path (path), start_line (0-indexed, default 0), end_line (inclusive, default None). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 'Read content from a file with line numbers, validating the file path first', which specifies the verb (read), resource (file), and key feature (line numbers, validation). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on Postman collection operations.

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 implies usage by stating it reads files with line numbers and validates paths, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or alternative tools is given.

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