read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the path-resolution convention; it says nothing about behavior when the file is absent, whether non-text/binary files are supported, or size limits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the path convention and example appended — no filler whatsoever.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema needs little more than this. The only gaps are error/edge-case behavior and whether the vault scope is the sole filesystem accessible, which are minor for this shape of tool.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: it specifies the path is relative to the vault and gives a concrete example ('people/jane-doe.md'). That is meaningful semantics beyond a bare 'string' type, though no absolute/leading-slash rules or extension requirements are stated.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (any vault file), plus the path convention. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search or get_context, which could plausibly also return file content, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation.

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 only implied by 'read any vault file by path' — it never says when to prefer this over search or get_context, nor what to do when the path is unknown. Adequate for a simple read but no routing guidance.

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