read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it only handles UTF-8 text files, restricts access to below the configured workspace root, and returns a SHA-256 hash rather than raw file content. This gives an agent important expectations for invoking the tool.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action, resource constraint, and return value are all present, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with supportive annotations, this description is complete. It specifies the input scope, the file type limitation, and the return value (SHA-256 hash), so the agent knows what to expect and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the single 'path' parameter as a workspace-relative file path. The description adds the 'below the configured workspace root' boundary and UTF-8 requirement, but it doesn't significantly deepen parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('a UTF-8 text file'), and a precise outcome ('return its SHA-256 hash'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like list_directory and write_file, which serve different purposes.

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 description clearly implies when to use it: when a file's content hash is needed, and only for UTF-8 text files within the workspace root. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the constraints are clear enough for selecting it over siblings.

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