file_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that traversal, symlink escapes, sensitive files, and secret patterns are guarded. However, 'guarded' is ambiguous—it does not specify whether such attempts result in an error, redaction, or empty content—and there is no mention of behavior for missing files or non-UTF-8 content.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the security guardrails are stated compactly without redundant elaboration.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers basic purpose and safety constraints, and the schema covers parameter types. Still, it omits behavior for guarded cases, errors, and return value shape, which an agent would need to fully predict invocation outcomes. It is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by implying projectId identifies a registered workspace and path refers to a file path within it. However, it does not clarify path format, whether paths are relative or absolute, or how projectId maps to the workspace beyond general inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('a UTF-8 file'), and a clear scope ('inside a registered workspace'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like file_write and file_patch, which are mutations, and from directory_tree or code_search, which serve different read purposes.

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 'inside a registered workspace' implies the tool requires a valid projectId and is meant for reading files within that boundary. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over directory_tree or code_search, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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