read_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'bounded line range', but omits critical details such as error handling, performance implications, file size limits, or what happens if line range exceeds file length. This is insufficient for safe and effective tool usage.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, its brevity sacrifices important details, making it borderline under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema), default behaviors, or edge cases. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 tool description adds no meaning to the four parameters (path, start_line, end_line, repository_id). It only hints at line range semantics but does not explain repository_id or path, leaving the agent reliant on parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('repository file'), and specifies it reads a bounded line range, which conveys a specific scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like repository_map or search_symbol, missing the chance to clarify when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (repository_map, search_symbol, find_references). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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