Read a project file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important behavioral context: sensitive-path filtering and redaction. This discloses that output may be filtered or redacted, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and constraining criteria. Every phrase (small, recognized, inside approved root, filtering, redaction) earns its place, making it compact and information-dense.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral qualifiers. It could be more explicit about what counts as 'recognized' or the size limit, but given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'path' as 'Absolute path inside an approved root' (100% coverage). The description adds context that the path refers to a small recognized text file, but does not provide additional syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline for well-covered schemas without going beyond.

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 verb ('Read'), the target ('small recognized text file'), and the scope ('inside an approved root'), with additional qualifiers ('sensitive-path filtering and redaction') that distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_project or summarize_project.

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 implies appropriate use for reading small recognized text files within approved roots, and the readOnlyHint annotation confirms it's a safe read operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions, so it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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