pin.read

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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds 'HEAD-only' and 'Sensitive paths blocked,' which are behavioral constraints beyond annotations, giving the agent useful expectations about what will or won't succeed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff; every clause adds value (action, constraints, alternative). Ideal size for a focused tool description.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values, but it only vaguely references 'full SHA.' It also omits line range behavior, error handling for sensitive paths, and optionality of lineStart/lineEnd. With 4 parameters and no output schema, this description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions 'path, lines, full SHA' which hints at sourcePath and lineStart/lineEnd, but does not explain their semantics, ordering, defaults, or how 'full SHA' relates to parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 clearly states the tool reads a HEAD-only source slice, specifying the resource (source code) and scope (path, lines, full SHA). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly recommending pin.prove for claim-making, indicating pin.read is for direct reading.

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?

Provides a clear alternative: 'Prefer pin.prove when making a claim' tells when not to use this tool. It also notes sensitive paths are blocked, implying a constraint on usage. However, it does not elaborate on when to choose pin.read over other siblings like pin.inspect or pin.get_doc.

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