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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: long files are cut off and the tool reports that, and generated/binary files are skipped. It doesn't detail return format or error handling, but the key behavioral surprises are covered.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each additional clause adds meaningful constraints or caveats.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers the essential scope, truncation behavior, and file-type exclusions. It doesn't explain the overall return format, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly. A small gap is the lack of any error-handling or permissions context.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds general behavior (file can be truncated, certain files excluded) but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Read one file from a repository connected to a project,' a specific verb and resource. The singular 'one file' distinguishes it from siblings like list_code and search_code, which cover browsing or searching.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you want one file's contents. It also states exclusions ('generated and binary files are not read'), but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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