ghidriff_read_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a read operation. It does not explain line-range pagination semantics, defaults, error behavior, or what happens when neither argument is supplied. The word 'page' hints at slicing but leaves the mechanics implicit.

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 single sentence is tightly worded and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It has no filler, but its spareness means it does not earn the top score that richer, equally concise descriptions achieve.

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?

The definition leaves important contextual gaps: all four parameters are optional with ambiguous precedence, and there is no guidance relating this tool to the job lifecycle or to sibling result/log tools. An output schema exists but is not shown, so the agent lacks a clear picture of return values or when to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (path, job_id, max_lines, start_line) is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the generic 'page' concept, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Read a page of the generated Markdown diff report' provides a clear verb ('read') and resource ('page of the generated Markdown diff report'), and the word 'page' conveys pagination. It is distinct enough from siblings like ghidriff_job_result and ghidriff_job_log, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus ghidriff_job_result or ghidriff_job_log, nor on whether 'path' or 'job_id' should be preferred. The description gives no context about mutual exclusivity or precedence, leaving the choice entirely to the schema.

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