Read bytes

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 64 KiB cap and the return layout, but says nothing about what happens for out-of-range offsets, past-EOF reads, or invalid targets.

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?

A single sentence with the scope limit and the output format front-loaded; nothing is wasted and no reading past the first clause is needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape, which is the main gap it fills. However, offset semantics and edge-case behavior for a read tool that takes raw byte positions are left undefined, which is more than a minor omission.

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 only 33% — just targetId is documented — so the description should carry more weight. 'Bounded window (max 64 KiB)' corroborates the length maximum and 'target' maps to targetId, but offset (absolute byte position from start?) and length (byte count?) get no meaning beyond the schema's min/max constraints.

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?

Names a specific verb (read) and resource (a byte window of the target), and states the output format (hex plus ASCII gutter). It is clearly distinct from siblings like hexvero_strings or hexvero_analyze, though it never explicitly names which sibling to prefer for a similar need.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'read' — there is no statement of when to choose this over hexvero_strings, hexvero_analyze, or hexvero_export, and no mention that a targetId must first come from hexvero_open (that fact lives only in the schema).

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