Read File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this reads a 'mock' file and specifies the path format, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, return format, or explicitly confirm non-destructiveness beyond the verb 'reads'.

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 two sentences, directly stating the action and providing an example. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter guidance. It does not explicitly state the return value format or error behavior, but the low complexity and clear verb 'reads' make this adequate for selection and 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 coverage is 100%, with the path parameter already described in the schema. The description adds a concrete example path and emphasizes 'full path', providing slight value beyond the schema, but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what is already documented.

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 tool reads the contents of a mock file from the file system, using a specific verb ('Reads') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files or upload_file by focusing on reading existing file contents, and the example path clarifies the expected input format.

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 the use case (read a file's contents) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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