Read a workspace file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sandbox and relative-path constraint, but says nothing about failure behavior (missing path, binary files), size/encoding limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, all of which matter for a filesystem 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the sandbox scope front-loaded before the path-format guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, path semantics, and return content ('full text contents'). It is nearly complete, with only edge-case behavior (errors, binary data) left unstated.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only concrete path examples ('welcome.txt', 'notes/todo.txt'), which is marginal value over the schema's 'relative to the workspace root' wording.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full text contents of a file') plus a scope qualifier ('inside the server's sandboxed workspace directory') that an agent can use to distinguish it from write_file and list_directory without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the sandbox scope, but the description never states when to use this versus siblings such as list_directory or write_file, nor does it name any exclusions or preconditions (e.g. 'use list_directory first to discover paths').

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