read_multiple_filesRead multiple text files from the workspace at once by supplying an array of relative paths. Retrieve file contents in a single call to reduce round trips.
Lê vários arquivos de texto do workspace de uma vez.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | Caminhos relativos ao workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does clearly indicate a read-only batch operation on workspace text files. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing paths, binary files, size limits, or error handling, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape.
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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, target, and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter and no nested schema, so the description is mostly adequate. Still, because there is no output schema, the description could have clarified what the tool returns, and it omits practical constraints like maximum number of paths or handling of missing files.
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%: the paths parameter is already described as 'Caminhos relativos ao workspace'. The description adds context that the files are text and multiple, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.
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 specific verb ('Lê'), a resource ('vários arquivos de texto do workspace'), and a distinguishing constraint ('de uma vez'). It clearly separates this tool from the sibling read_file, which handles a single file.
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 phrase 'de uma vez' implies batch reading, giving some usage context, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over read_file or mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is present only by implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.