fs_read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions support for text and binary files, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical details such as file size limits, error handling (e.g., for missing files), or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a read operation without annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read the contents of a file from the filesystem') and adds a useful detail ('Supports text and binary files') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a read operation with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (path and encoding). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 action ('Read the contents of a file') and resource ('from the filesystem'), specifying support for both text and binary files. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fs_write_file or fs_get_file_info by focusing on content retrieval rather than modification or metadata.

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 for reading file contents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_get_file_info (for metadata) or fs_write_file (for writing). It mentions support for text and binary files, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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