read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions 'supports line range', which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the tool's name. The term 'read' inherently implies non-destructive behavior, and the suitability note suggests a focus on text files. It does not cover error handling or binary files, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource, followed by a parenthetical that adds key capability and use case. It is extremely concise with zero wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with four parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the primary return value (file content) and provides usage context. It does not detail edge cases or response format, but given the low complexity and schema completeness, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, with clear descriptions for limit, offset, server_id, and remote_path. The description's mention of 'line range' adds little beyond the schema's 'Number of lines to read' and 'Start line'. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read remote file content'. It further distinguishes the tool by noting 'supports line range', which sets it apart from sibling tools like download_file or write_file. The mention of 'suitable for logs and config files' adds context for when this read operation is appropriate.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by stating the tool is 'suitable for logs and config files', indicating a text-reading use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish from download_file or write_file.

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