brain_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' effectively signals that this is a non-mutating, read-only operation, which is useful. However, the description does not disclose behavioral details like max_chars truncation, error handling, or any constraints beyond the basic read action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaningful information, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple read operation.

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?

The input schema and output schema provide structured context, and the read action is simple enough that the description is mostly usable. Still, missing usage guidance and unexplained max_chars behavior leave small but real gaps. This is an adequate but not fully complete definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'path' by specifying 'relative path', but 'max_chars' is left entirely to its title and default value, with no explanation of how it limits the read or what the effective behavior is. The description only partially clarifies the parameter surface.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a vault file by relative path.' It clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like brain_batch_read (multiple files) and brain_grep/brain_search (search-based access).

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 phrase 'by relative path' implies this tool should be used when the file path is already known, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as brain_batch_read, brain_grep, or brain_search. Usage context is present but mostly left to inference.

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