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 mentions the working directory constraint and returns JSON, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The important prerequisite is highlighted with HTML tags. The Args and Returns sections are structured but not overly verbose. Could be slightly tighter by removing redundant formatting.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior, prerequisite, and return format. It does not need to explain return values in depth due to the output schema. Sibling tool relationships are not mentioned, but the core context is sufficient.

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 input schema has no description for file_path (0% coverage), so the description's Args section adds minimal value: 'The path to the file.' This restates the property name and type without deeper meaning, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Reads' and the resource 'content of a file', with a useful constraint 'within the working directory'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_files or edit_file_block, the verb 'read' is sufficiently distinct.

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 explicitly notes a prerequisite: 'Make Sure you have Called FIRST_STEP_get_instructions first'. This provides a clear when-to-use instruction. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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