read_root_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Read' does signal a non-mutating operation and the root-scoping constraint is valuable access context. But it is silent on what happens when the path falls outside the root (error? exception? empty result?) and on handling of large or non-text files, which are the main behavioral risks for this tool.

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?

One tightly constructed sentence with the security constraint front-loaded right after the operation. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 explained, and the description covers the operation plus the key access restriction. The remaining gap is path-format and out-of-root failure behavior, which matters for a single required parameter tool but is a modest omission.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description has to compensate and only partially does: it implies the path is workspace-root-relative and constrained to granted roots, but never states whether it must be absolute or relative, nor its format. This narrows the ambiguity without resolving it.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('a text file') and adds a scope qualifier (tenant-granted workspace root), which separates it from siblings like list_root_files and search_in_roots. It never names those alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause 'only if it lies inside a tenant-granted workspace root' functions as a precondition for use, which is genuine guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over summarize_text or review_file for the same file, so the routing decision is left implied.

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