read_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only says 'read', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention error handling, return format, encoding, or file size limits. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description lacks comparison with sibling tools and behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the file does not exist). The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, but it does not compensate.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The schema already provides sufficient semantic detail, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('a file from a project'), making the core purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_section_content, but 'file' is a distinct concept.

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 get_section_content, list_files, or write_file. The description simply states the action without any context or exclusions.

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