read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist or path is invalid, if there are size limitations, or what format the content is returned in. For a file operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads 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?

Given that this is a file system operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens in error cases, what format the file contents are returned in, or any limitations. For a tool that reads files from a VPS, more context about behavior and output is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides about the single 'path' parameter.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('contents of a file on the VPS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'get_current_directory' or 'list_directory' that might also involve reading file system information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to be connected to the VPS first), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' (which lists files) or 'get_current_directory' (which gets directory info).

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