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 states the action ('Leer') but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether it requires read permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist (e.g., throws an error), or if there are size/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with the file system.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the complexity of file operations (potential errors, permissions, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., file content as string, error messages), behavioral aspects, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('file_path' and 'encoding') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Leer' - Read) and resource ('contenido completo de un archivo' - full content of a file), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_info' or 'search_files', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'read_file' over 'get_file_info' (which might provide metadata) or 'search_files' (which might search within files), nor does it specify prerequisites like file existence or permissions.

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