sassy_read_file

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: line-based pagination, header contents, 0-based offset, negative offset tail mode, length capping behavior, and directory refusal. This gives the agent a clear model of how the tool behaves at call time.

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: purpose, return shape, parameter semantics, edge-case behavior, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the read-only nature and primary action before diving into details, with no filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers everything else needed to invoke the tool correctly: pagination semantics, defaults, tail mode, directory error behavior, and alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool properly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, and it does thoroughly. It explains offset semantics including 0-based indexing and negative tail mode, length's role and default, and that length is ignored in tail mode. The path parameter is clearly implied as the file to read.

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 and resource: 'Reads a text file with line-based pagination' and details the exact output format (numbered lines under a header). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is not for directories and by pointing to sassy_list_dir, sassy_read_multiple, and sassy_search_files.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it for large files by paging, prefer sassy_read_multiple when several files are needed, and prefer sassy_search_files for searching text across a tree. It also states that directories are refused and routes the agent to sassy_list_dir, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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