read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations – "Long files are truncated" – but says nothing about encoding, binary handling, or the shape of a folder listing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the truncation caveat in two short sentences, then a compact Args block. No filler, though the parameter detail could have been folded into the prose more tightly.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the essentials are present: what it does, the dual file/folder mode, truncation, and path semantics. The only real gap is what a folder listing returns, which is a minor omission given no output schema exists.

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 carries the burden and does so reasonably: it names the parameter, calls it a "Full path," and gives a concrete example ("~/Documents/notes.md") that also reveals tilde expansion works. It stops short of stating whether relative paths are accepted.

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 ("Read") and resource ("text file") and discloses a secondary mode (listing a folder's contents). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_pdf, read_browser_tab, and append_to_file, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus read_pdf, read_browser_tab, or find_files, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The dual file/folder behavior implies usage but leaves the agent to infer which siblings to pick.

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