file.read_range

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states return values (slice, rangeHash, contentHash) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling for out-of-bounds ranges or missing files.

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?

Single sentence of 18 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by specifics.

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 adequately explains what is returned and the range semantics. It could be improved by mentioning error states or why this tool exists alongside file.read, but it is mostly complete.

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 has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description clarifies 'file', 'from', and 'to' as 1-based inclusive line range. However, the optional 'vault' parameter is left unexplained, which is a gap.

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?

Clear verb 'Read' and specific resource 'line range from a file' with details (1-based inclusive, returns slice and hashes). Distinguishes from siblings like file.read which likely reads entire file.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file.read or lines.replace. The phrase 'for surgical follow-ups' hints at use but is vague and does not provide decision rules.

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