Files Read Text File

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not explain path interpretation, file size limits, encoding, permissions, or what happens when max_bytes is exceeded. Since destructiveHint is false, the agent at least knows this is not destructive, but the description contributes nothing beyond that.

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 short and easy to scan, but its single sentence does not earn its place because it only repeats the tool name and adds a generic exposure note. It is under-specified rather than usefully concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the annotations provide safety hints, the description is incomplete for a file-reading tool. It lacks any statement of what the tool does, how path should be resolved, what max_bytes controls, or what the returned content looks like. An agent could infer much of this from the name and schema, but the description itself is not complete enough.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it does not. The schema only provides names, types, and defaults, leaving path and max_bytes semantics entirely undocumented. The description offers no clarification about what path should contain or how max_bytes affects the result.

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 essentially restates the tool name: "Delegated Apple domain tool 'files_read_text_file' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP." It does not state that the tool reads the contents of a text file from a given path, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling file tools like files_get_file_info or files_list_directory. The tool name implies the purpose, but the description itself provides no functional verb or resource explanation.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many file-related siblings, such as files_list_directory, files_search_files, and files_get_file_info, but the description does not mention any of them. There is no misleading guidance, but there is also no usage context.

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