get_text_file_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that returned contents include hashes for concurrency control and line numbers, and explains the purpose of hashes (conflict detection). This adds value beyond a simple 'read' operation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant words, but could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral details from parameter reminders.

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 no output schema, the description informs about return values (contents, hashes, line numbers). It covers the main use case and constraints (absolute paths). Sibling tools are all write operations, so contextual completeness is adequate.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal new info about parameters, merely reinforcing that file paths must be absolute. It does not elaborate on encoding or range semantics beyond schema.

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 text file contents from multiple files and line ranges. It specifies the resource (text files) and action (read), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that write or modify 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 indicates when to use the tool (reading file contents) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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