read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real trait most definitions omit — output is truncated when the file is too large — but says nothing about path form (relative vs absolute), error behavior on missing/unreadable files, or whether binary content is handled.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler, and the truncation caveat is placed immediately after the core action. It reads as under-specified rather than padded, so conciseness itself is not the weakness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not required, and the truncation note covers the main surprise a caller would hit. Still missing for a file-read tool are path-resolution semantics and failure behavior, which an agent needs to call it reliably.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not; 'path' is never defined in the description. However, the parameter is a self-evident file path, which limits the practical harm of the omission.

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 and resource ('Read the contents of a file'), so an agent immediately knows this returns file content. It does not contrast itself with siblings like search, semantic_search, or list_files, so an agent must infer that it is for whole-file retrieval rather than querying.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_files, search, or semantic_search, and no prerequisites such as whether the path must exist or be in the workspace. Usage is only weakly implied by the name.

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