Read Local Working Copy File

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses there is no network call, the on-disk location (~/.litewrite-mcp/<projectId>), and the return format (raw bytes framed as text). Missing only things like error behavior on a missing file.

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?

Front-loaded core statement, then the sibling contrast, then a compact Args block and return note. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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-param local file read with no output schema, the description covers location, behavior, args, and return framing. It omits error/missing-file behavior and whether the local copy must first be pulled, which a careful agent might want.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with the same wording ('Relative path in the local copy', 'The Litewrite project id'). The path-location note adds slight context for projectId but no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (local working copy file) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling litewrite_read_file. An agent can distinguish local vs remote reads without opening either schema.

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 '(no network call)' note and the direct contrast with litewrite_read_file give clear context for when this tool applies. It does not spell out an explicit when-not or a full decision rule against the other read/list siblings, but the local-vs-remote distinction is unambiguous.

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