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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: large files are truncated. It does not say how much is returned, where the truncation boundary is, or how to retrieve the remainder, and it is silent on missing-path errors, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose and scope lead, and the alternative-route note follows. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers purpose, file-type scope, and truncation behavior. The remaining gap is operational: no note on what happens when the path does not exist or how to get untruncated content.

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 100%, with both path (relative to workspace, as shown by list_workspace_files) and session_id (read from a campaign shared with this account) fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so it sits at the baseline.

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 action and resource ('Contents of a text file in the workspace') and concretizes it with examples (script, plan, creator brief, transcript). It also explicitly carves itself away from get_download_url for non-text media, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion with a named alternative: for PDFs, images or videos use get_download_url instead. That is real routing guidance. It stops short of a full 5 because it says nothing about when to prefer this over list_workspace_files or when session_id is appropriate — that context lives only in the schema.

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