Read file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only states the basic operation without disclosing whether the file content is returned, how errors are handled, or any permission requirements. For a read operation, this is minimal and leaves important aspects undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately minimal for a simple read operation. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly. It does not mention the return value (presumably file content), potential errors, or clarify the 'app' parameter. With no annotations or output schema, these missing details leave ambiguities that could lead to incorrect calls.

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 has 50% coverage (path is described, app is not), and the tool description adds no parameter information at all. The description does not explain what 'app' refers to or clarify the path format beyond the schema. It completely fails to compensate for the undocumented app parameter.

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 resource (a file from an app), which is specific and unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like write_file, delete_file, and list_files by naming the read operation, making it evident when to choose this tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_files could be used to discover available files first, nor any conditions or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'read,' leaving the agent to infer context.

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