read_project_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions line numbers and dual-file output for classes but omits details on error handling, default behavior for max_lines (0 meaning all), or permissions. While basic read behavior is clear, additional specifics are missing.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and add a key detail about dual-file output. 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and four parameters, the description covers the core function and output characteristics. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., symbol must exist in project) and doesn't explain parameter defaults (max_lines=0). Still, it is mostly sufficient for a focused 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining 'symbol' as a class/function/struct and implying 'include_header' via mention of .h/.cpp. However, 'max_lines' and 'members_only' are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 retrieves implementation source code for classes, functions, or structs, specifying it shows actual lines with line numbers and handles dual files for classes. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools that search or retrieve metadata.

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 implies the tool is for reading source code, but it does not explicitly define when to use it versus alternatives. However, sibling tools are all non-source-reading (e.g., find_*, search_*), so confusion is minimal.

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