read_include

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not explain whether the file is decoded, whether 'Thai support' affects output, what happens if the file is not found, or what the return value contains. The 'Thai support' hint suggests some special behavior but is not elaborated.

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 sentence and immediately conveys the core action and target resource. It is concise and front-loaded, though the '(Thai support)' parenthetical is vague and does not fully earn its place without explanation.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description gives the essential invocation context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without details about return format, error behavior, or encoding quirks suggested by 'Thai support'.

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 parameter 'name', including an example value. The description adds no new parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource type ('.inc file'), and a location ('include directories'), which distinguishes it from broader file-reading tools like read_pawn_script. However, the parenthetical '(Thai support)' is ambiguous and does not clearly differentiate it from reading other include-related files.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_pawn_script, list_includes, or install_include. The phrasing implies it is for .inc files in include directories, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or sibling references.

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