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 states the read operation and return type, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., file not found) or permission requirements, which are important for a file reading tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. It uses a clear Args section for parameter details without unnecessary fluff.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It explains supported file types and the max_chars parameter, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema titles: 'path' is described as absolute path, and 'max_chars' explains its purpose and suggests increasing for large files. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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', the resource 'file', and the output 'as text'. It also specifies supported file types and that the file need not be pre-registered, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_tracked_files.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (any text file) and notes that pre-registration is not required. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like search_fulltext for non-direct file access.

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