file_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses only that the target must be a text file. It says nothing about truncation behavior, the max_chars cap, permission/error behavior, or what happens when the file is large or binary.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness pushes detail burdens onto other dimensions rather than being a structure flaw.

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 5-parameter remote-read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return shape, truncation signaling, and binary/encoding handling. An agent can guess how to call it but not what to expect back.

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 60%, and 'optionally a line range' loosely maps to start_line/lines, but the interaction between lines and start_line is not explained. The host and max_chars parameters get no added meaning from the description.

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+resource ('Read a remote text file') and scopes it to text files with an optional line range. It is easy to distinguish from the sibling file_write, but the description never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as exec or http_probe for retrieving content, and no prerequisites (host reachability, auth) are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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