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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real constraints the annotations do not: .env/hidden files and binaries are not readable. It stops short of noting size or truncation behavior for large files.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then path semantics, then the readability caveat. Every sentence adds information and nothing is padded.

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 described. The description covers purpose, path origin/format, and readability limits, which is sufficient to invoke correctly; only the untouched project_id and large-file behavior leave minor gaps.

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 carries the burden and does well for file_path: it defines it as a project-relative path sourced from dreamagent_list_files and gives two concrete examples. project_id is left to inference, but its meaning is unambiguous next to file_path.

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+resource ('Read a source file from a DreamAgent project') and scopes it with a restriction on what is readable (hidden files, binaries). It does not explicitly contrast with read-adjacent siblings like dreamagent_get_file_diff, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It implies context by pointing to dreamagent_list_files as the source of the path, which tells the agent where the value comes from, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_diff or edit_file.

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