read_file_text

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the 60,000-character truncation with self-disclosure, and concrete failure modes (unsupported file types, scanned or password-locked PDFs, missing paths) reported as plain messages.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and formats, then usage routing, then limits and failure behavior. No sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers format support, size limits, error conditions and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so path, folder and private are already documented in the schema, including the example path format and the folder/private semantics. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the text inside a note or file by its path') and enumerates the supported formats (Markdown, txt, CSV, JSON, YAML, .docx, PDF). It clearly separates itself from siblings by naming open_result, read_note, list_notes and recent_changes in the relevant roles.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use it for attachments and exact paths from list_notes or recent_changes, use open_result for search results, and read_note before an edit. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are spelled out.

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