read_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details such as error behavior (e.g., file not found), support for binary files, encoding assumptions, or any file size limits. The basic safety profile is provided but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, no repetition. Every word adds value. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the read-only note. Perfectly structured for quick agent scanning.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and safety. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text vs. base64 for binary) or error handling. For a tool that reads arbitrary files, an agent would benefit from knowing what kind of content is returned, which is missing.

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 describes the 'path' parameter as 'Relative project path' with 100% coverage. The description adds a slight clarification ('relative to project root') and implies the path can point to any file. This adds minor value beyond the schema, but the parameter semantics are mostly already conveyed by the schema.

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 ('any project file'), and the scope ('by path relative to project root'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings which are focused on specific entities like models, migrations, or seeding 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling names imply this is for generic file reading and others are for specific operations, no direct guidance or exclusions are provided. The phrase 'any project file' gives context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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