Read multiple project files in parallel

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

The description adds important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it returns line-numbered content and SHA-256 hashes, preserves path and secret protections, and enforces a 30-file limit. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality with no wasted words.

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?

Covers overall purpose, output format (line-numbered content, hashes), and protection behavior. However, it lacks parameter details and return structure, which is noticeable given no output schema and low schema description coverage.

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 only 25% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters (files, concurrency, maxTotalChars) or how startLine/endLine/maxLines work. It should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond 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 reads multiple approved text files in a single call, returning line-numbered content and SHA-256 hashes. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'read_file' by batching and specifying a limit of up to 30 files.

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?

Implicitly indicates use for batch reading with efficiency ('in one call') and preserves protections like read_file. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for few files) or alternatives beyond implication.

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