Read file contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Raw contents" usefully signals verbatim, unparsed output, but it says nothing about permissions, size limits, encoding, or error behavior for missing files.

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 short sentences with no padding; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description says only "raw contents" without indicating return shape or handling of large/truncated responses. For an unannotated read tool with 6 params, a bit more behavioral detail would help.

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 83%, so path format and panel/key overrides are already documented inline. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (read raw file contents) in the first sentence, which cleanly separates it from list/write/delete siblings in the files_* family. It does not explicitly differentiate from files_download_url, which overlaps in intent.

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?

"Use for text/config files; large or binary files are better downloaded" gives both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use condition, steering the agent toward the download sibling for binaries. The alternative isn't named by tool name, so routing requires inference.

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