read_file

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that omitting the file name reads all files in the project. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise, comprising two short sentences that convey the essential information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core behavior. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning that the tool returns file content and possibly indicating what happens if the file doesn't exist. Still, it is largely adequate.

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 itself contains descriptions for projectId, name, and codeSourceId within a nested object, so the schema provides parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. With 0% top-level schema description coverage, the description does not compensate.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'file from a project', and clarifies the behavior when no file name is provided (reads all files). This distinguishes it from sibling read_* tools like read_backtest or read_live_algorithm.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied from the tool name and context, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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