read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the action and supported types, but does not disclose that read is non-destructive, whether it requires permissions, or how it handles large files or media output. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 very concise, with two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action; the second clarifies support for media files, which is non-obvious and adds value. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details on media file behavior and output format. The mention of 'media files' is ambiguous—does it return binary data or a preview? The description does not clarify, so completeness is only moderate.

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%, so all parameters (path, type, limit, offset, show_line_numbers) are already well-documented. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema covers all parameters, and the description does not improve on it.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('the contents of a file'), and the mention of text/media files distinguishes it from sibling tools like write, edit, and remove. The purpose is unambiguous and the agent can immediately infer this is a read operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that grep is for searching content, or that read is for retrieving file contents, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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