node_file_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read a text file', omitting crucial details like file size limits, binary support, requirements for node state, or error handling (e.g., missing file). This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be overly brief for the needed informativeness. Given the minimalism, it earns its place but could expand slightly without losing conciseness.

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 having an output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it doesn't specify if the read is restricted to text, what the return format is (though output schema may cover this), or how paths are interpreted. With 3 parameters unannotated in schema or description, the tool is under-defined for reliable use.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. The three parameters (node_id, file_path, project_id) are not described, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema which lacks descriptions. The agent cannot infer what 'project_id' means or how file_path is resolved.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'text file', and the location 'inside a node's working directory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like node_file_write by focusing on reading. The purpose is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_file_read or node_console_read. The agent must infer from the name and siblings, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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