rtfm_expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (returns file content with line numbers) and the indexed-file precondition, but it does not elaborate on other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, the meaning of 'chunks', or any limitations. For a read-only tool this is acceptable but minimal, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is immediately after. Every sentence earns its place without repeating schema content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is short but supported by rich parameter descriptions in the schema. It clearly tells the agent when to use the tool and what the output looks like (content with line numbers). Missing details like how target or offset interact are already covered by the schema, so the description is comparatively complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description does not add extra meaning about count, offset, target, or project beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No parameter guidance is missing because the schema handles it.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('content of an indexed file with line numbers'), which clearly distinguishes it from rtfm_search and other sibling tools. The secondary sentence 'Use after rtfm_search' reinforces that this is the follow-up read step, and 'Like Read, but for indexed files' differentiates it from a general-purpose Read tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use after rtfm_search', telling the agent when in the workflow to invoke this tool. The comparison 'Like Read, but for indexed files' provides an alternative and clarifies that this should be used instead of Read when the file is part of an index. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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