efs_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals caching, pagination, size/format support, and special handling for Excel and PDF. This goes beyond a simple 'read file' statement, but it omits details like return format or caching invalidation, which prevents a top score.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose ('Read file with caching and pagination.') and then adding supporting details about size, format, and special cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content.

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 high-level behavior and format handling, but since there is no output schema, it should explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, binary buffer, or markdown for PDF). It also leaves caching semantics vague. These are notable gaps for a tool with 6 parameters and no structured output.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, providing a 100% coverage baseline. The description adds meaningful context by linking offset/length to pagination and mentioning sheet/range for Excel, which helps the agent understand how these parameters are intended to be used together.

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 opens with 'Read file', a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the operation. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like efs_write, efs_edit, and efs_delete by focusing on reading, while also adding useful capabilities like caching, pagination, and format-specific handling for Excel and PDF.

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 when to use the tool: for reading files of any size, with text/binary support, and offset/length for pagination. It also identifies Excel and PDF special cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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