read_multiple_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: failures do not abort the batch and each entry is returned independently. This is valuable. However, it does not describe the return format or mention any permissions required, which would add more context.

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 two concise sentences with information front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and benefit, the second explains batch behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

The description covers the core purpose and failure isolation, but for a batch tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, it would benefit from mentioning the return structure, ordering of results, and the distro parameter. The missing return format is a notable gap given the output schema is absent.

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 only 50% (paths has a description, distro does not). The description does not explain the distro parameter or add any parameter-level detail. The purpose implies paths are files in WSL, but the optional distro parameter remains ambiguous, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use it.

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 multiple files from WSL in one call', with the specific benefit of reducing round-trips. It distinguishes itself from the single-file sibling read_file by emphasizing the batch nature. The independent return and failure isolation further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'reduces round-trips' implies this tool is for batch reading, and the independent failure handling indicates it can be used when some files may fail. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like read_file or specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single file).

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