Read Multiple Files

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'Failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation,' which is critical for an agent to understand error handling without contradicting annotations.

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 composed of four short, information-dense sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with essential usage and behavioral details.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, efficiency gains, output structure, error resilience, and directory restrictions. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'paths' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; the mention of output format is unrelated. Baseline 3 is appropriate per rules.

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' and the resource 'multiple files simultaneously,' which distinguishes it from single-file reading tools like read_file. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'more efficient than reading files one by one when you need to analyze or compare multiple files.' It also notes the restriction 'Only works within allowed directories,' giving clear context for appropriate use.

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