Ler arquivo texto

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic read operation and return values, but omits critical behaviors such as error handling for missing files, truncation semantics of maxBytes, encoding handling, and whether it rejects binary 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function in one line.

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?

The description covers the basic return values but lacks essential context for a tool with maxBytes: what happens when the file exceeds maxBytes, error behavior, file encoding, and return value structure. Since there is no output schema, the description needs to fill these gaps but does not.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. filePath is self-explanatory from context, but maxBytes has no meaning in the description—its default, maximum, and purpose are undocumented beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Lê' = reads), resource ('arquivo de texto' = text file), and return values (content, size, SHA256 hash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs.write_text and fs.list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools like fs.edit_lines or fs.write_text.

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