Read the complete text content of a single file from an absolute path, with optional encoding selection.
Read the full text content of a single file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the file | |
| encoding | No | Text encoding, defaults to utf8 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the entire content is returned; it says nothing about binary files, large-file handling, truncation, error behavior on missing paths, or permissions.
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 sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the stated purpose.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape and edge cases, yet it only says 'full text content'. Adequate for a simple read, but an agent cannot tell how to handle non-text files or failures.
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 100%, with both 'path' and 'encoding' documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no detail about path resolution, encoding fallback, or defaults beyond what the schema already says.
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 (a single file) with the scope 'full text content', which implicitly distinguishes it from read_multiple_files. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 phrase 'single file' implies this is the choice when one file is needed rather than many, but the description never states when to use this versus search_files, get_file_info, or read_multiple_files, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.