read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read operation with optional encoding/range, implying non-destructiveness, but does not mention error behaviors, permissions, or return format.

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 one front-loaded sentence: 'Read file content with optional encoding and range'. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read tool, the description adequately conveys the return value (file content) and key options. Given no output schema, it could benefit from a note on return type or behavior on missing files, but it is nearly complete for the complexity level.

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 100% with all four parameters (path, limit, offset, encoding) described. The description's mention of 'encoding and range' reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter-specific semantics.

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 file content with optional encoding and range' uses a specific verb (read) and resource (file content), clearly distinguishing this from sibling mutation tools like write_file/delete_file and metadata tools like get_file_info.

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?

Usage is implied by the description—it reads file content—but there are no explicit when-to-use instructions or exclusions, such as 'use get_file_info for metadata' or 'use search_in_files for text search'.

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