Read text file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, strict scoping to the Job Tracking tree, and refusal of escaping paths. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't mention error handling or encoding, which are minor for a read tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: scope, usage examples, and a pointer to an alternative. No redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and alternatives. It lacks mention of return format or error behavior, but the operation is self-explanatory. The absence of an output schema raises the bar slightly, yet the description remains adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter meaning but adds example values and explicit resolution under the Job Tracking root. This is useful but not a significant addition over structured 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 clearly states the tool reads plain-text files within the Job Tracking folder tree, listing specific file extensions and example files. It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_document for PDFs/docx, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use this tool (for text files in Job Tracking) and explicitly names an alternative (read_document for PDFs/docx in Resumes). It also clarifies input format (filename or relative path) and scoping constraints.

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