Read Text File

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it provides detailed error messages, handles various encodings, operates on text regardless of extension, and only works within allowed directories, exceeding what annotations convey.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value: first on core function, second on error handling, third on usage. No redundancy.

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 simple tool with output schema, the description covers reading behavior, encodings, error messages, directory restrictions, and partial reading options. It's fully adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 67% (head/tail described; path missing). The description adds usage guidance for head/tail but doesn't significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Path parameter lacks detail.

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 tool reads a file's complete contents as text, distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_media_file' (media) and 'read_multiple_files' (multiple files). It specifies handling encodings and error messages.

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 explicitly says to use when examining a single file and explains partial reading via head/tail parameters. It lacks a 'when not to use' section but provides clear context.

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