read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the primary purpose and does not mention edge cases, error handling, encoding, or return format. For a simple read operation this is adequate but lacks extra context that could aid an agent.

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 that states the tool's purpose immediately. Every word carries meaning, and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the tool's function. It does not need to explain return values, and the simplicity of the operation makes the description complete enough to use correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter semantics with the description 'Full file path to read' for the path parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read the contents of a file' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files, edit_file, and delete_file. It states exactly what the tool does with minimal ambiguity.

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 the tool is for reading a file's content but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with list_files for directory listing, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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