read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool reads 'complete content' and 'text file,' which hints at non-truncation and file type limitations, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, how it handles errors, or any size limits—information needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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, short sentence that is immediately clear and free of any unnecessary words or filler. Every word serves a purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 tool's simplicity (a basic read operation) and the schema covering all parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema and with no mention of return value or error scenarios, it lacks some completeness that would be expected for a tool with no annotations. It is sufficient but leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both path and encoding, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by implying that the path must be a single text file, but it does not elaborate on the encoding parameter or provide additional usage details beyond the schema.

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 action ('read') and the resource ('a single text file'), with the word 'single' and 'complete content' distinguishing it from read_multiple_files and other file operations. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_multiple_files or search_files. The word 'single' implies it is for one file, but it does not explicitly state the exclusion of multiple files or point to the alternative, so the usage context is not clear.

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