read_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions RBAC enforcement but lacks details on error handling (e.g., file not found), encoding, behavior for binary files, or truncation with max_chars. The term 'text-like' is vague.

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 short sentence, but it omits essential details. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; under-specification reduces utility.

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 lack of annotations, incomplete parameter documentation, and no output schema info, the description does not adequately cover the tool's usage, behavior, or return values. Siblings exist but no guidance.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain the meaning of rel_path (that it's relative to repo root) or max_chars (truncation limit). The path scope is hinted but not explicitly tied to the parameter.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('text-like file'), and the scope ('relative to repo root'). It distinguishes from siblings: list_files lists files, search searches, set_role sets role, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for reading file contents but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. siblings like list_files or search. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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