Read Text File

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it handles various text encodings, provides detailed error messages, operates as text regardless of extension, and only works within allowed directories. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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 three clear sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more structured formatting could improve readability, but it is still concise and informative.

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 output schema exists and annotations provide safety, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter explanation, and behavioral constraints. No gaps identified.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the head and tail parameters in context (first/last N lines) and mentioning encoding handling. Schema coverage of 67% is moderate, but the description compensates well.

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 reads the complete contents of a file as text, handles encodings, and works within allowed directories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_media_file' by specifying it operates on text regardless of extension.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('examine contents of a single file') and describes how to use head/tail parameters for partial reading. It could be improved by explicitly naming alternative tools for non-text or multiple files.

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