webdav_range_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read') and the partial content behavior, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid ranges. It adds some context beyond the schema but is incomplete for a tool interacting with remote servers.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and behavior but lacks details on authentication, errors, or return values. For a tool with remote operations and two parameters, more context would be helpful for safe and effective use.

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 50% (only 'range' has a description). The description adds no explicit parameter semantics, but the tool's purpose inherently clarifies that 'path' is the file location and 'range' specifies bytes. This compensates partially for the low schema coverage, though format examples are only in 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 verb ('Read'), resource ('a specific byte range from a file'), and context ('on a remote WebDAV server'), with the analogy to HTTP 206 Partial Content adding technical specificity. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like webdav_get_remote_file or webdav_read_remote_file by emphasizing partial content retrieval.

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 for partial file reading, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like webdav_get_remote_file (full file) or webdav_read_remote_file (full read). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the 'byte range' focus.

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