Read Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds that it reads 'text files' but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., encoding, handling of missing files, line limits beyond schema defaults). With annotations covering the primary behavioral concern, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Still, it earns a 4 due to efficient structure.

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 the existence of an output schema and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage and return behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with significant gaps. The completeness is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 does not clarify the meaning of any parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden on description is high. An agent cannot infer what 'projectPath' should be (absolute/relative path?) or how 'files' should be specified (relative to projectPath?). The maxLines parameter is also unexplained despite having a default and bounds.

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 ('Read'), resource ('text files'), and scope ('from a local project'). It distinguishes from siblings like code.read_range and code.search by focusing on full files, not ranges or search results.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like code.read_range or code.search. No explicit context or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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