Read file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Read', which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not reveal behavior on missing files, encoding, return format, or permission requirements. This is minimal and leaves significant uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. The verb 'Read' appears immediately, and the entire statement is efficient. It earns full marks for conciseness, though this comes at the cost of completeness.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. An agent needs to know how to specify 'app' (e.g., from create_app/list_apps), the expected path format, and what the tool returns—none of which are covered. The description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 50%: the 'path' parameter has a schema description, but 'app' does not. The tool description adds no explanation for either parameter, failing to compensate for the missing 'app' documentation. An agent cannot tell what value to pass for 'app' or the expected path format from either source.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('a file'), and a container ('an app'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like write_file, list_files, and delete_file. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on what constitutes an 'app' or the file types supported.

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, such as list_files (to enumerate files) or write_file (to modify). It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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