read

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

With no annotations given, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. It adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: 'Path traversal is blocked.' However, it does not explain return values, error behavior, or permissions. The security note is useful, but the description remains minimal.

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 consists of two short, purposeful sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the security warning is appended without redundancy. No filler words—optimal conciseness.

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 read operation with fully specified parameters, the description adequately conveys purpose and a key constraint. The return value (file contents) is implied by 'read,' and error handling is not critical for a basic tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention return format, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (file_path as relative path, project_path as absolute root). The description only repeats the phrase 'project directory' and adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Read a file from the project directory.' The verb 'read' and resource 'file' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like write/edit (which mutate) and grep/glob (which search). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other directory/search tools like listdir, grep, or glob. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based recommendations. This is a clear gap.

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