Read a bounded logical slice from a saved process data entry using file path, process index, offset, and length. Inspect only the needed captured data section instead of loading the full entry.
Read a bounded logical slice from a saved process data entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| process_index | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond what the verb 'Read' already implies. It adds the 'bounded logical slice' concept but says nothing about permissions, read-only guarantees, out-of-range behavior when offset/length exceed the entry, or error semantics — significant gaps for a 4-parameter no-annotation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the parameter load.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage across four parameters, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine parameter formats or behavioral constraints from this description alone.
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%, so the description must explain all four parameters, yet only 'bounded logical slice' vaguely gestures at offset/length. It gives no units, no meaning for process_index, and no indication that file_path identifies the capture source, leaving the schema's bare titles to do the work.
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), resource (saved process data entry), and scope qualifier (bounded logical slice), which distinguishes it from generic readers like capture_read_entry. It does not, however, name any sibling or explain the boundary relative to capture_read_definition/type/hex, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many capture_read_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is the reader for process data entries specifically, with no exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.