read_media_fileReads an image file to return an image, or a binary file to return base64, enforcing size limits.
Lê um arquivo de imagem (retorna como imagem) ou outro binário (retorna base64). Respeita o limite de tamanho.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho relativo ao workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (image vs base64) and that a size limit is respected, but it does not specify what the size limit is or what happens when it is exceeded, leaving important behavior ambiguous.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded and the size-limit constraint is stated separately, making it easy to scan.
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 low-complexity read tool with one well-described parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return behavior and a key constraint. The main omission is the specific size-limit threshold and failure behavior, but the tool remains usable as described.
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?
The single parameter 'path' is already fully described in the schema as relative to the workspace (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lê um arquivo de imagem') and clarifies the two output modes, distinguishing it from generic file readers like read_file. The purpose is immediately clear and correctly scoped to media/binary 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?
The description establishes clear context for when to use this tool: for image files or other binary files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the binary/media scope is sufficient to guide selection among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.