read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: only text files are supported and the read is capped at 200 kB. It does not say what happens when the cap is exceeded or what errors occur on a missing path.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: action, resource, format examples, and limit. No filler, nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say more about the return (raw text content) and about failure modes such as oversized or binary files. For a simple one-parameter read it is adequate but leaves the truncation behavior ambiguous.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the lone 'name' parameter. The path examples (0:/sys/config.g, 0:/macros/...) give the expected format, which the bare string schema does not. It still omits whether relative paths or other roots are valid.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read a text file from the SD card,' with concrete path examples (0:/sys/config.g, 0:/macros/...) and a size constraint. It is distinguishable from name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_files, 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?

Usage is implied: read a single known file versus listing contents. There is no explicit 'use this when..., use list_files when...' routing, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must already exist).

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