read_workspace_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the file is read as full text and is restricted to the workspace folder, but does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found, permissions), encoding, or size limits. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and scope. It lacks details on error behavior and security restrictions beyond 'sandboxed', but these are acceptable for a straightforward read 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'file_path' with 0% description coverage. The description adds the constraint that the path must be 'strictly inside the sandboxed workspace folder', providing context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify path format (relative/absolute) or constraints, so it partially compensates.

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 specifies the action ('read the full text contents'), the resource ('a specific file'), and the scope ('strictly inside the sandboxed workspace folder'). It also mentions typical use cases ('get context from previous documents or code files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_workspace_file.

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 'Use this to get context from previous documents or code files', which gives a clear when-to-use. It does not directly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the usage context is clear.

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