read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the truncation to 2048 bytes, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not address errors (e.g., file not found) or output format, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 concise with four lines, front-loading the key purpose. The usage and example are clear, though the 'cat <path>' notation might be mildly confusing. Overall, no wasted words.

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 output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, the description misses the agent_id parameter and does not cover error cases or edge conditions. Given the presence of many sibling file tools, more context would help.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter (absolute path) but completely ignores the 'agent_id' parameter, which is required. This is a significant omission.

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 states it reads the first 2048 bytes of a file, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_file (full content) and copy_file. However, it omits the agent_id parameter, which is part of the tool's identity.

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 provides a usage example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_directory or download_file. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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