read_api_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little beyond the basic read action. It does not say what happens if the path is invalid, whether large files are truncated, what the return shape is, or whether the read is guaranteed non-destructive.

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 or redundancy. It is perhaps overly terse for the behavioral gaps it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations it should say more about read safety, failure modes, or content size limits to fully equip an agent.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents filePath with concrete examples ('src/lib.rs', 'pumpkin-plugin.wit'). The description adds only the framing that paths are relative to the API or WIT root, which is already in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('content of a specific file') with scope ('in the Pumpkin Plugin API or WIT interface'). It is clearly distinguishable from list_api_files and search_api_code in intent, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to reinforce the contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_api_code (find content) or read_code_block, nor any note about prerequisites such as the file needing to exist. 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.