code_intel_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: reads are bounded to a line range and restricted to the configured repository. However, it never states that the operation is read-only/side-effect free, nor how it behaves on a missing file, an out-of-repo absolute path, or a range exceeding the cap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its two constraints are stated immediately.

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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits read-only confirmation, error/edge-case behavior, and any hint of the return shape (raw lines vs numbered lines). An agent can call it, but cannot fully predict its behavior.

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 75%, so the schema already documents path, end_line, and repo_path; only start_line's default relies on the schema's default keyword. The description's 'bounded line range' and 'inside the configured repository' echoes rather than extends the end_line cap and repo_path semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a bounded line range from a source file') and scopes it to the configured repository, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from code_intel_search, code_intel_symbol_graph, and code_intel_index. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use when, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as code_intel_search for locating content versus this tool for reading it. An agent must infer the read-content use case purely from the verb.

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