read_file

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

The annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful result and limit behavior: fingerprint metadata accompanies the content, and content may be truncated at max_chars; it does not explain the metadata fields or whether truncation is flagged in the response.

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 compact sentences front-load the operation and output, then immediately state the use case, limitation, and alternative. There is no filler or repetition of annotation-level safety details.

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 three-parameter read with complete schema documentation and safety annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation behavior. Because there is no output schema, the unspecified fingerprint structure and truncation indicator leave a small completeness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references max_chars as the truncation threshold but adds no path, server_id, or parameter-format guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific action and resource—reading a text file—and states that the result contains content plus fingerprint metadata. It also distinguishes the operation from read_file_chunk by framing this tool as the full-file read.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool when the full file is needed and routes controlled continuation after truncation to read_file_chunk. This supplies both a use case and a concrete alternative tied to the truncation condition.

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