Read a 4.2BSD source file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the 1500-line maximum and optional line-range limiting, which are important operational traits. Error behavior for missing files is not covered, but this is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 file-reading tool with clear schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it reads, examples, and output limits. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but that is implied and not critical for a read operation.

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 examples for 'path'. The description adds a general 'line range' hint and the 1500-line limit, but does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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 ('source file from the 4.2BSD tree') with concrete path examples. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_manpage or read_pages.

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 tool's intended use is clear from the description and name. It provides practical usage context (line range restriction, 1500-line cap) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like search_source or read_manpage.

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