Read a bounded project artifact range

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses hard limits (64 KiB per read, 16 MiB per file), the return format (base64 bytes, range, file metadata), and security behavior (symlink and escape rejection, Linux descriptor-anchored access). These are exactly the operational details annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, each front-loading a distinct concern: scope, security rejection, return format with limits, and access mechanism. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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, the description usefully specifies the return payload (base64 bytes, range, metadata) and the size ceilings, so an agent knows what it will get back and when a read will be truncated. It stops short of describing error behavior (e.g., what happens on a rejected symlink) or how path resolves against workspace.

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 parameter meaning. It partially compensates: the 64 KiB per-read cap maps to maxBytes and 'range' hints at offsetBytes, while the 16 MiB file ceiling and base64 return format add real semantics. However, workspace and path are never explained (e.g., relativity, containment rules), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read regular files') plus a clear scope ('only inside authorized configured/registered projects'), so the agent knows it reads file content rather than metadata or sessions. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like read_scoped_artifact or read_project_text, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Scope is implied through constraints ('regular files only', 'no shell or broad host file read'), which tells the agent what this tool is not for. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to the alternative tools (read_scoped_artifact, read_project_text, list_project_files) for cases outside this narrow scope.

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