Metis — 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. It discloses that it returns text and has a max_chars default, but lacks details on error handling, encoding, or behavior for binary files. The description adds moderate value beyond what the schema provides.

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 fairly concise with a clear two-line summary and an Args section. The first sentence could be combined with the second, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, file types, and parameter defaults. It does not mention output format explicitly, but that is likely defined in the output schema. It is mostly complete for a read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides prose explanations for both parameters (path and max_chars), including usage guidance for large files. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 reads file content and returns text, lists supported text file types, and notes that files need not be pre-registered. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_tracked_files or list_folder.

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 specifies it works for any text file and that the file doesn't need pre-registration, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for binary files or metadata), and no alternatives are mentioned.

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