Read a file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: encoding 'auto' auto-detects text vs binary, the operation uses Blockbench's own file layer, and it requires no plugin permission. It stops short of covering failure modes (missing file, path resolution, size limits), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the encoding behavior — the one non-obvious detail — is front-loaded after the one-line purpose. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the encoding dimension well but leaves gaps: what path is relative to, what happens on failure, and how large files are handled. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: encoding's default ('auto') and the meaning of each enum value ('text'/'base64') are explained, which is more than the bare enum list in the schema provides. The path parameter is self-explanatory and needs no elaboration.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read a file from disk'), and the read direction clearly separates it from bb_write_file and bb_delete_path. It does not explicitly contrast with other file-adjacent siblings like bb_file_info or bb_glob, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as bb_file_info (metadata) or bb_glob (discovery). The agent must infer that this is the tool for retrieving file contents.

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