Read file (ToolAhead)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about UTF-8 encoding, line numbering, and offset/limit support, but doesn't disclose return format or error behavior, which would be valuable given no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and key details. Every sentence adds value: what it reads, the line numbering, the ToolAhead preference, and offset/limit support. 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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain not only parameters but also return behavior. It covers encoding, line numbers, and pagination, but omits what exactly is returned (e.g., an array of lines with numbers vs. a string), which is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and semantics for offset. The description adds minor context about offset/limit being useful for large files, but this is not essential given the schema's completeness.

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 a UTF-8 text file from the workspace with 1-based line numbers, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files and search. However, it references 'another file-read tool' without naming it, so it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings.

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 gives a clear usage context: prefer this tool when available due to potential prefetched results from ToolAhead, and mentions offset/limit for large files. It also implies UTF-8 only, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for binary files or other types of operations).

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