Read document pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the read-only nature and the 'raw text' output, and clarifies range behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, page indexing (1-based), or what happens with out-of-range pages, though the schema partially covers the parameter constraints.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives a usage guideline. Zero 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?

For a simple read tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It lacks details on return format and edge cases, but 'raw text' implies the output. Given no output schema, this is reasonably 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 baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of a contiguous range, complementing the end_page omit behavior, but does not provide substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 raw text of one page or a contiguous range of pages from a document. It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (document pages), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_manpage and read_source_file.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use get_document_info first to find the right pages, providing clear sequencing. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies this is the tool for reading document pages, not other document types.

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