read_file

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose encoding, error behavior (e.g., file not found), size limits, or whether it supports binary files. For a read operation, basic expectations like returning text are implied, but key behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise sentence without fluff. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content; still, it fits the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal. It lacks essential context about return format (plain text? binary?), error handling, and limitations. Without an output schema, the agent needs more detail to anticipate results.

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 input schema already explains 'file' and 'project' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the tool's action.

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 uses a clear verb 'Read' and resource 'contents of a file', making the tool's purpose straightforward. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_code or git_diff, which also interact with file contents.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_code or git_diff. No mention of prerequisites, file existence, or handling of binary files.

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