read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: truncation via max_bytes, the as_root implementation (`su -c cat`, WSA/Magisk), and the return shape. It omits permission/error behavior (missing file, unreadable file) and binary/encoding handling, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the core action, then layer on the size cap, root mechanism, and return shape with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed (the description redundantly lists them anyway). With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should have covered error cases, permissions, and the remote/serial parameters more fully; it is workable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for max_bytes (truncation threshold) and as_root (root cat mechanism), but the required 'remote' parameter and 'serial' are left completely unexplained, and no path format is given.

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+resource ('Read a text file from the device'), which is unambiguous and distinct from write_file/delete_file. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the read-oriented siblings pull or run_shell cat, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pull (for binary/large files) or run_shell. The description only notes the max_bytes limit and as_root mechanism, which are capabilities rather than selection criteria.

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