read_local_file

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention what happens if the file does not exist, the encoding (binary/text), or whether the file is read entirely. This lack of transparency significantly hinders correct usage.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information. While not wasteful, it is under-specified for a useful tool description.

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 simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at minimum state that the tool returns file contents. Without this, the agent cannot predict the output, making the description incomplete.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional meaning (e.g., expected format, relative vs absolute). The agent must infer path semantics from the name alone.

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 the verb 'Reads' and the resource 'local file', which aligns with the tool's name and distinguishes it from siblings like read_gcs_file. However, it lacks specificity about what is returned (e.g., contents of the file), which would enhance clarity.

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 like read_gcs_file or fetch_web_article. It also omits prerequisites such as file existence or permissions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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