ecp_files_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'read... content' but does not mention side-effect-free behavior, file size or encoding limitations, permission requirements, or what happens if the file is missing or not a text file. The disclosure is minimal and lacks the behavioral detail needed when annotations are absent.

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 sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded with the action and object. It is appropriately compact for such a simple tool, though it is terse enough that it approaches under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should fill in what an agent needs to know. It doesn't explain the return value format or path constraints, and while the operation is simple, the lack of any behavioral or output details leaves important gaps for confident 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no detail about the file_path parameter. It doesn't explain whether paths are absolute or relative, what path scope is allowed, or what format the parameter should take. This leaves the agent to guess the path semantics, a significant gap.

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 a specific action ('read') and a specific resource ('a text file's content'). It distinguishes itself from sibling file tools such as ecp_files_write, ecp_files_list, and ecp_files_directory_tree by saying exactly what is returned. An agent can immediately tell this tool is for retrieving file contents.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no references to companion tools like ecp_files_list or ecp_files_directory_tree, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and one-sentence purpose.

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