Read a single file in the workspace to get its content and a fingerprint/snapshot, supporting read-only inspection and change detection for coding agents.
Read a single file within the workspace and obtain a content fingerprint/snapshot. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| max_bytes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read-only' is a useful safety signal, but nothing is said about size limits (max_bytes caps at 1 MiB), offset/paging behavior, or how a missing/unreadable path is handled.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted filler. It is concise but so sparse that brevity shades into under-specification.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the definition leaves too much open. It should at least state that it returns file content plus a fingerprint, and clarify how offset/max_bytes bound the read.
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% and the description mentions no parameters at all. 'single file' faintly implies path, but offset and max_bytes – both non-obvious paging/truncation controls – are completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a single file within the workspace'), and the scope ('single file') implicitly distinguishes it from bulk/search-oriented siblings. It never names fs_stat or search as the alternative for metadata or content search, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the sibling list whether fs_stat (metadata) or search (content lookup) is the better fit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.