read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context beyond the simple name by specifying the UTF-8 encoding and workspace-relative scope. However, it does not mention behavior on errors (e.g., file not found), return format (e.g., raw string), or any constraints like file size limits. Thus, it provides some transparency but not comprehensive details.

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 that conveys the essential purpose and a key detail (UTF-8) without any unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the action and encoding but does not mention the return value or error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description could have added that it returns the file content, which is a notable omission. Overall, it is 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the 'path' parameter is already well-documented in the schema with an example. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; the UTF-8 note in the description relates to file content, not the path parameter. Therefore, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: reading file content within the workspace, with UTF-8 encoding specified. It uses a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('文件内容'), and the scope is defined as '工作区下' (under the workspace). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_file, list_files, and execute_command, which have different operations.

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 implies usage for reading text file contents from the workspace but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., binary files, large files, or non-existent paths). The sibling context suggests it is for reading, but the description lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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