inspect_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors such as file size limits, encoding, error handling (e.g., file not found), or whether it reads the entire file at once.

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 sentence, which is concise but omits critical details. Front-loading the purpose is good, but brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context about return format, error cases, and file path constraints. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates missing return details.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter or explain its format (e.g., absolute vs relative path, allowed characters). The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 'Read a local file and return its contents' clearly states the action (read) and the resource (local file), explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'apply_patch_set' which modifies files.

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 implies usage for reading file contents, and the sibling tool name 'apply_patch_set' provides context that this is the read counterpart. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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