Read File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral note about avoiding unnecessary rereads after writes. However, it doesn't disclose line-numbering behavior specifics or large-file truncation given the max_bytes cap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about avoiding rereads is somewhat tangential to what the tool does but is useful guidance. No waste.

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?

With readOnlyHint=true, a 100% schema coverage on 6 params, and an output schema present, the description is adequate. The only gap is not explaining what 'line numbers' output format looks like, but the output schema likely covers that. A complete read tool with good annotations.

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 all 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema; the 'avoid rereading' guidance is the only value-add. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 it reads a text file with line numbers, which is a specific verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like read_many_files or tree, though the line-number specificity offers some differentiation.

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?

There is guidance about when NOT to read (avoiding rereading files after write/edit unless exact content is needed), providing useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss when to prefer alternatives like read_many_files or the read-only nature.

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