stata_read_dofile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does say the tool reads and returns content, which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not execute the do-file or trigger Stata, a relevant distinction from sibling tools like stata_run_dofile.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It states the action, the resource, and the intended purpose efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description provides the essential context: what it reads and why. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that it does not execute the file, but the use case is still clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, 'path', with the description 'do 文件的完整路径', giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action and resource: '读取 do 文件内容' (read do-file content). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stata_write_dofile and stata_append_dofile, and the purpose '检查、解释或继续修改' further clarifies its role.

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 intended usage is implied by the purpose phrase '检查、解释或继续修改' — use this tool when Claude needs to inspect or modify a do-file. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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