files_read_config_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only implies a non-destructive read. It does not disclose error behavior, file size limits, encoding, or what happens if the file does not exist.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus an example. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks usage context relative to numerous sibling tools. It does not guide the agent on when to select this over similar read operations.

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 description adds meaning to 'relative_path' by clarifying it is relative to the HA config directory and providing examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is valuable, though it could mention path syntax or allowed values.

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 tool reads a config file relative to the HA config directory, with concrete examples. It distinguishes from write/delete/list tools but does not explicitly differentiate from other read tools like automations_get_automation_config.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., files_list_config_files, automations_get_automation_config). The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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