read_file

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds a material behavior: large file contents are truncated. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 highly concise: a one-line purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections. It contains no filler and is front-loaded with the primary operation.

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?

For a simple read operation, the description covers the core behavior, optional line ranges, and truncation. Combined with the rich schema and safety annotations, it is sufficiently complete; missing details like error behavior and encoding are minor for this 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?

The description only lists parameter names and does not explain their semantics. However, the embedded schema already documents each parameter in detail (path, line range inclusivity, host semantics, response_format), so the description does not need to repeat that information.

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 operation: reading a text file, optionally limited to a line range. The verb 'beolvasasa' and the object 'szöveges fájl' make the purpose specific and distinguish it from write/edit/list operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_info or list_files. The purpose is implied, but there is no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites.

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