fs_read

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation (no side effects) and adds the key detail that paths are relative to FSGUARD_ROOT. However, it does not disclose error handling, file encoding, or limitation to text files only, which are relevant for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The critical scoping detail (path relative to FSGUARD_ROOT) is front-loaded in the second sentence, ensuring the agent reads it.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the tool's function and the key path constraint. Minor gaps (such as return format and error behavior) are not critical given the simplicity, but a bit more detail could improve completeness relative to an agent's expectations.

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 does so by explaining the crucial semantic of the path parameter: relative to FSGUARD_ROOT. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not cover other potential constraints like allowed file types or size limits.

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' and the resource 'text file contents', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also specifies that the path is relative to FSGUARD_ROOT, which differentiates it from sibling tools like fs_write, fs_list, fs_search, and fs_move.

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 usage (reading file contents) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives. Unlike get_calls which names a sibling, here the sibling tool names are enough to infer differentiation, but no formal guidance is given. The intended context is clear from the verb 'read'.

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