read_project_file

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It mentions path, file, binary, and size checks but does not explain what happens on failure, binary rejection, or permissions. Vague on error handling.

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?

Single sentence is concise but at the expense of clarity. It could be expanded to provide necessary context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, error behavior, or how to appropriately invoke the tool. Sibling tools like list_project_files suggest context but not covered.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema. Only root is described as 'Absolute configured allowed root.' No explanation of relativePath format or maxBytes (e.g., truncation vs error). Schema coverage is low (33%), so description should compensate.

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 reads a text file from an allowed root with specific checks, distinguishing it from listing or searching siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like list_project_files or search_project_files.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context on proper invocation scenarios.

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