Read File

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

Annotations already indicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral details: bounded, symlink-safe, UTF-8, binary detection, truncation flags, secret redaction. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Every word ('bounded', 'symlink-safe', etc.) adds value. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers key behaviors (safety, truncation, redaction). It does not detail binary detection behavior but that is minor. Output schema covers return info, so completeness is adequate.

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 40% (low). The description does not directly explain parameters but indirectly adds meaning via 'bounded' (maxBytes/maxLines) and 'secret redaction' (redactSecrets). It could do more to clarify parameter usage.

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 it reads a file with safety features (symlink-safe, binary detection, secret redaction). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like sdlc_read_files (multiple files) or sdlc_search_code (search).

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 implies usage for safe, bounded reads but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist but no comparison or when-not advice is provided.

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