Read Arma Reforger Project File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Description adds the important behavioral detail of 'bounded line range', clarifying that not the entire file is read. This is useful context beyond the annotation.

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?

Description is short (two sentences) and to the point. The bilingual format adds some redundancy but is acceptable for a multilingual tool. No filler.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description lacks return value info, error cases, and prerequisites. It is insufficient for a file reading tool that could have encoding or size limitations.

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 25% (only path has description). Description mentions 'bounded line range' but does not explain startLine, endLine defaults, or constraints (e.g., endLine max 5000). It fails to add meaning for 3 out of 4 parameters, which is needed given low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'read a bounded line range from a text file', specifying the action, scope (inside an addon), and the bounded nature of the read. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_project_file (write) and inspect_project (inspect).

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?

Description implies usage for reading specific file sections but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings (e.g., search_workspace for search or inspect_project for metadata). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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