Read an artifact within a recorded run scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it revalidates current operator policy, refuses caller-supplied grant expansion, honors excludedPaths, and enforces 64 KiB/16 MiB limits with descriptor/symlink checks. It stops short of documenting error/auth-failure behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the scope and security behavior. Slightly cramped: limits and checks are named but not fully unpacked, which hurts more than it saves given the zero schema coverage.

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 4 undocumented parameters (two required), no output schema, and pagination-relevant fields like offsetBytes untouched, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. Behavioral/security coverage is good, but the parameter story an agent needs is largely absent.

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 burden. It maps loosely to maxBytes (64 KiB) but never explains runId, offsetBytes, or pagination semantics, and 'excludedPaths' is not even a parameter. Two of four parameters (including both required ones) receive no clarification.

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 (Read) and resource (regular project or declared external file) scoped to a persisted run context/write scope. This implicitly differentiates it from the sibling read_artifact, which the description references for shared limits, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

The phrase 'within a persisted run context/write scope' implies when this tool applies rather than read_artifact, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative condition. The reference to read_artifact is about inherited limits, not routing between the two.

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