read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. 'Read file contents' unambiguously signals a non-destructive read-only operation, which is the key behavioral trait, but it adds nothing about permissions, missing-file errors, encoding, or path resolution.

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 only three words with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word adds meaning.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, 'Read file contents' plus the path property provides the minimum viable information to attempt a call. It is incomplete regarding error behavior, return format, and alternatives, but the simple tool shape keeps the gap modest.

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 path parameter beyond what the schema already states. It does not mention whether paths are absolute or relative, supported file types, or how path relates to the current working directory.

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 a specific action ('read') and resource ('file contents'), and the read intent distinguishes it from siblings like write_file. However, it does not elaborate on what kinds of files it can read or how it relates to other file-related tools.

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 about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as write_file or get_email_content. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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