read_file

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: large files are truncated to protect model context. The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the extra truncation warning is valuable and actionable. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 that states the action and a critical limitation. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool, the description covers purpose and a key limit, but lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and fails to clarify max_chars and server_id. The absence of output schema and parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for autonomous invocation.

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 explain parameters. It only implies 'path' through 'read a text file' and does not explain max_chars (which controls truncation) or server_id (target server). The truncation note hints at max_chars, but the connection is not made explicit.

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 tool's purpose: 'Read a text file.' It names a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_file_chunk, the core action is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as read_file_chunk, read_log_tail, and find_in_file, the tool's description should clarify which scenario it fits. The mention of truncation could imply large-file handling, but it doesn't direct users to alternate tools for chunked reading.

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