read_project_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds no concrete behavioral details such as what 'safe' means, whether path traversal is blocked, what the return payload is, or how errors are reported.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the ambiguous 'safe' term could be replaced with more informative content without making the description longer.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'safe project file' means, how the path should be specified, or how this tool complements list_project_files, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. While 'projectId' and 'path' are self-descriptive names, the description does not clarify path semantics, format, or constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a clear action verb, 'Read,' and identifies the resource, 'project file.' The qualifier 'one' helps distinguish it from list_project_files (list vs read a single file). However, 'safe' is ambiguous and not elaborated, slightly weakening clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over list_project_files, get_thread, or other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites like a valid projectId or path format. Use cases must be inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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