js_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the ref parameter flexibility but omits critical details like what the output contains (e.g., file content, metadata), error behavior (e.g., file not found), and side effects. The max_bytes parameter is not explained.

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 concise: two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second explains the ref parameter. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., file content), does not explain the name and max_bytes parameters, and omits error handling or size limit behavior, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does for ref, detailing multiple formats (integer index, full URL, path, saved_as path, basename) and that the first match wins. However, it does not explain the 'name' parameter or 'max_bytes', leaving those unclear.

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 'Read one JS file from a source,' specifying the verb (read) and resource (JS file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like js_list (list files), js_search (search), and js_load (load bulk), which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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