read_text_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'output is clipped' behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not explain what 'safe' means (e.g., path traversal restrictions) or how clipping works (controlled by max_chars).

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint. No redundant words or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (indicated by context), the description is somewhat adequate. However, it misses explaining the 'safe' restriction and the role of max_chars in clipping. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, more detail would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, the description does not mention any of the three parameters (path, workdir, max_chars), their roles, or defaults. This is a critical gap.

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'), the resource ('safe text file from a work directory'), and a key constraint ('output is clipped'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files (which lists files) and various write tools.

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 (e.g., list_files for listing, or other file manipulation tools). There is no mention of when not to use it, such as for binary files or files outside the work directory.

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