read

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

The phrases 'block-expanded and size-bounded' provide some behavioral hints, but they are unexplained and cryptic. With no annotations, the description does not adequately disclose side effects, permissions, or return format for a 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words. It is highly concise, though the extreme brevity sacrifices some clarity.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, usage scenarios, and does not define the purpose of all parameters, relying on cryptic hints.

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 0%, and the description only partially clarifies the 'target' parameter via 'symbol or file:start-end range'. The 'expand' and 'max_tokens' parameters are not explicitly explained; the cryptic 'block-expanded' and 'size-bounded' are insufficient compensation.

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 symbol or file:start-end range' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (symbol or file range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like locate/explore/search, which are discovery-oriented rather than retrieval-oriented.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested context. The description is purely definitional and offers no usage context.

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