proj_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the path-resolution note but says nothing about the max_chars truncation behavior, error handling for missing files, or encoding, leaving the main non-obvious behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the returned content front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the gaps noted in the other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, omitting any mention of max_chars and its truncation semantics leaves the definition materially incomplete for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the 'path' parameter (relative to project root or absolute), which is genuine added value, but the 'max_chars' parameter is completely absent from the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names the resource (project file) and the returned form (raw text), and the parenthetical scoping 'relative to project root or absolute' tells the agent this differs from parsed-code siblings like proj_get_code. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the action is only implied, but the intent is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings like ipc_read_file and proj_get_code in the same space, the agent is left to infer why it would pick this tool over those.

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