Read the built code

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 useful behavioral traits: files can be hundreds of KB, so slicing is recommended, and no download is needed (inline access). However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or any permission requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency. The added context about file size and slicing is appreciated but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause contributes: the first sentence states what the tool does, the second gives practical usage tips. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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-only file access tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: direct project access, large-file handling with offset/limit, and integration with search_code. It does not explain return value structure or error cases, but the core usage scenario is well addressed, making it nearly complete for common needs.

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 coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description explicitly explains the purpose of offset/limit ('read a slice'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not compensate for the missing descriptions of maxChars and projectId, and it does not elaborate on the raw parameter. The description adds some value but largely relies on the schema.

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's function: 'Read a file straight out of a Claude Design project, no download needed.' It specifies a concrete verb ('read') and resource ('file from a Claude Design project'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_code (finding lines) and pull_files (downloading) by emphasizing in-place reading. The title 'Read the built code' reinforces the purpose.

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 actionable guidance: for large files, use offset/limit to read a slice, and use search_code first to locate the line. This implies a workflow and when to use read_file versus search_code, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like pull_files for downloading or state when not to use read_file. Still, the context is clear and helpful.

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