read_files

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds concrete behavior beyond that: UTF-8 restriction, per-file line/byte limits, SHA-256 hashing, and per-file failure reporting. It does not detail the full response structure, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences, with the core operation front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause earning its place. The second sentence provides per-file behavior without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with a moderately nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers the main selection criteria, encoding, limits, hashing, and failure isolation. It could add an explicit statement of the response shape, but an agent can safely invoke it from this plus the schema.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is only 50%, and nested fields like max_bytes, max_lines, start_line, and line_numbers lack schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining per-file line/byte limits and per-file failures, but it does not clarify start_line or line_numbers semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read multiple UTF-8 text files in one bounded call.' The plural 'files' and 'one bounded call' clearly distinguish it from the singular sibling read_file, making tool selection obvious.

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?

It clearly conveys a batching use case ('multiple files in one bounded call') and per-file failure isolation, which signals when to prefer this over repeated read_file calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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