read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the path is relative to the repo root and that the tool "Resets idle timer," which is a non-obvious side effect. The read-only nature is implied by "Read" but not explicitly stated, which is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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 four short sentences, each adding value: purpose, path constraint, prerequisite, and idle timer behavior. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, path semantics, prerequisite, and a behavioral side effect. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly stated that the file contents are returned, but this is strongly implied by the tool name and 'read' verb.

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 already documents the single parameter 'path' with "Path relative to repo root," which is also repeated in the description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantic meaning. The baseline for high coverage is 3.

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's function: "Read a file from the cloned repo," with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory and search_repo by focusing on reading a single file's content. The path constraint "relative to repo root" adds precise scope.

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 a clear prerequisite: "Call ensure_repo first," telling the agent when this tool can be used. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple read operation.

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