read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key behaviors such as input encoding handling, behavior on binary files, error outcomes for missing paths, or how pagination works. The phrase 'with limits' is insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits necessary information that would require only a few more words, making the brevity counterproductive.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, accepted path formats, or any interaction with the file system. The description is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 has zero description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It offers only the vague phrase 'with limits,' which hints at the limit/offset parameters but does not explain their meaning, relationship, or defaults. The path parameter is not described at all.

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 states a clear action ('Read') and resource ('text file'), so the core purpose is evident. However, 'with limits' is vague and does not specify what limits apply (likely the limit and offset parameters) or distinguish this read operation from sibling tools like search_code or open_file_at_line.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection among the many file-related siblings.

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