read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core read operation and return text, but does not mention the max_answer_chars behavior where oversized chunks produce no content, nor line-range edge cases. The schema covers these details, so the description is minimally viable but not rich.

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 two sentences and front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage guidance, then states the return value. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 moderate complexity, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains purpose, use cases, and return behavior, though a brief mention of the max_answer_chars truncation rule would make it fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it hints at chunking via 'or a chunk of it' but does not explain start_line/end_line semantics or max_answer_chars beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Reads the given file or a chunk of it.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling symbol-oriented tools by advising find_symbol/find_referencing_symbols for symbol lookup, making the purpose clear and unique.

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?

It explicitly states when symbolic operations should be preferred instead of read_file, giving named alternatives. This provides actionable guidance on when not to use the tool, satisfying the usage guidelines dimension.

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