Read Lampa source file bytes

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readonly and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: full-file truncation at max_lines, the range behavior ignoring max_lines, the missing-path error, and the kind-dependent behavior. These details are not inferable from the annotations alone.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: scope is front-loaded, sibling distinctions come next, and then concrete behavioral rules and error handling. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

For a 6-parameter read tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and several sibling tools, the description covers selection, parameter interactions, defaults, and error outcomes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without needing additional context.

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 100%, but the description still adds meaning beyond the schema: it documents the default max_lines of 300, the precedence of start_line/end_line over max_lines, the file-required rule for kind=file, and the omit-file listing behavior. This goes well beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool reads bytes/contents from one known path: a repo file, a src/core module, or a src/templates template. It also differentiates itself from search_code/find_files and explicitly warns against list_catalog, so an agent can identify its exact purpose.

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 explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: it returns a single target's contents, unlike search_code/find_files, and should not be used to dump catalogs. It also provides per-kind invocation rules, such as kind=file requiring a file and omitting file with core/template to list.

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