read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback to sudo cat, which is a key behavioral trait beyond a basic read. However, it omits details on authentication, error handling, timeout behavior, or limitations, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core function and a key behavioral detail. Every word is purposeful, and there is no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain return format, error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., SSH setup), or parameter semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without further inference.

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%, meaning no parameter is explained in the description. With 11 parameters, including non-obvious ones like 'errors', 'use_sudo', and 'max_bytes', the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 resource 'remote file over SSH'. It also mentions a fallback behavior, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like write_file. The verb+resource combination is specific and immediately understandable.

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 usage for reading remote files and mentions a fallback when permission is denied, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like execute_command. No direct guidance on prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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