read_example_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Read the contents' but does not disclose whether this operation is safe/idempotent, any size limits, or what happens if the file does not exist. A basic read operation still benefits from such context.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and to the point, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., string, JSON) or whether the contents are returned as raw text. Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what the agent can expect. Currently it only says 'read the contents', which is vague.

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% with one parameter that has a description. The description adds examples ('package.json', 'index.ts'), providing concrete usage guidance beyond the schema definition.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read the contents of a specific example file' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_example_files, which lists files rather than reading contents.

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 list_example_files, read_ontology_file, etc., but the description does not specify that this tool is for reading a single file's contents while others are for listing or reading different file types.

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