Read a plugin's source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the default 200-line window, the paging mechanism, and the fact that the result carries parsed @param blocks in a `declared` field.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero banter; the resource and its defining property are front-loaded, and each remaining sentence adds a distinct fact (default size, paging, declared output).

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?

With no output schema and three sparsely documented params, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: where the source lives, how to page it, and what the parsed output field contains. The only real gap is the size/limit of the `lineCount` parameter.

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 carry the load and mostly does: it explains `name` through the path template, and `fromLine` as the paging control plus the 200-line default that implies `lineCount`. Only the `lineCount` parameter itself is left unnamed and unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a window of lines from js/plugins/<name>.js') and explicitly positions it against siblings by calling it 'the only way to see what a plugin actually hooks before editing around it', which distinguishes it from patch_plugin and write_plugin_source.

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?

Gives clear context for use (reading plugin hooks before editing, paging long files via fromLine) and implicitly routes against the plugin-writing siblings, but never states an explicit 'when not to use' or names an alternative tool by name.

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