read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'agent-sudo policy enforcement', hinting at authorization needs but lacks specifics on permissions, error handling, or behavioral traits like file size limits or encoding. For a read operation, more transparency about constraints would be beneficial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 8 words. It is concise and gets to the point, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about return value format, error behavior (e.g., file not found), and any constraints. Could be more complete for a minimal tool.

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% for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add information beyond what the schema provides ('File path to read.'). Baseline score of 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?

The tool name and description clearly indicate reading a local file. The phrase 'agent-sudo policy enforcement' adds context about authorization, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_shell_command, write_file, and get_runtime_context. Could be slightly more specific about the policy, but overall clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include write_file and run_shell_command, but the description does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded. Implied usage is only reading files, but no explicit 'when not to use' or differentiation.

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