Get File Content

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds a critical behavioral constraint: binary files will produce garbled content, which goes beyond the annotations and helps prevent misuse. Minor deduction for lack of error handling details for missing files or permissions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first states the primary function, and the second adds an essential limitation. No redundant or extraneous words.

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 operation with strong annotations and fully described parameters, the description covers the key behavioral constraint (text-only files). However, it does not explicitly mention the return format or behavior when the file does not exist, which would benefit completeness.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (routerId and name) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action 'Read' and the specific resource 'a text file's contents from a MikroTik router'. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from list_files and upload_file by noting its limitation to text files, which is a key operational constraint.

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 provides clear context for usage (reading text files only) and includes a binary file caveat, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or specify when not to use it. The binary file warning serves as a partial guideline.

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