read_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that ranges are 1-based, limited to 400 lines per batch, and that empty module_name/ranges have specific default meanings. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 a single dense sentence that leads with purpose, then packs parameter semantics into semicolon-separated clauses. Every part earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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, return-value details are not needed. The description covers path formats, defaults, and range constraints. The only notable omission is an explicit dir_path definition, but the tool name and 'from unpacked catalog' provide enough context for an agent to infer it.

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 explain the parameters. It does explain object_path, module_name, and ranges with syntax and defaults, but it never explicitly names or defines the required dir_path parameter, only implying it through 'из распакованного каталога'. This is a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Прочитать BSL-модуль объекта из распакованного каталога'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like read_bytecode and get_модуль_structure.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (read a BSL module from an unpacked catalog) and provides concrete parameter conventions. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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