Re-hydrate files now

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Read', which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., updating tracked state, interactions with sessionId) or error conditions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and provides the essential details. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits the meaning of 'sessionId', does not specify return format, and offers no usage context. The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably decide when and how to use this tool.

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 0% description coverage. The description explains that 'paths' can provide given files, but it does not explain the 'sessionId' parameter at all, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'tracked' and 'given' files or how parameters combine. This leaves significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 a specific action ('Read') and target ('tracked (or given) files from disk'), and it clarifies the outcome ('return current contents'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like files_track or offload_fetch by focusing on loading file content.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_offloaded, offload_fetch, or context_status. The description only mentions the mechanism ('tracked or given files') but does not explain under what circumstances one would rehydrate files.

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