read_project_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavior beyond the schema: output is truncated past max_bytes. However, it is silent on error behavior for missing files, non-UTF-8 content, and whether truncation is silent or flagged.

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?

A single tight sentence with the constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and truncation is covered. Still, for a file-read tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the absence of any error, encoding, or path-resolution context leaves real gaps.

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 schema documents neither parameter's meaning. The description partially compensates by explaining that max_bytes is a truncation threshold, but the required 'path' parameter's semantics (absolute vs relative, workspace root) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read a UTF-8 text file from disk. This is clearly distinguishable from list_directory and word_count, but the description never names those siblings or states the boundary between this and other read-style tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for viewing file contents rather than scanning a directory or counting words.

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