read_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lossless ledger behavior (full first, diff on re-reads) and per-file error handling without failing the batch. This gives agents a solid expectation of output and failure modes.

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, followed by behavioral details. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the key behaviors (ledger, error isolation) enough for an agent to predict the call's effect. Minor lack of explicit return format or ordering, but sufficient given the tool is a batch variant of read_file.

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% for both paths and force_full, so parameters are already well-documented. Description adds general batching context but no extra semantics 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?

States clearly it reads a working set of text files in one call, with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling read_file by contrasting 'one call for N files' vs 'N calls'.

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?

Provides clear context for batch reading multiple files and contrasts with the alternative of making N calls. Doesn't explicitly say 'use read_file for a single file' but the contrast implies it.

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