read_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses it is read-only and warns about large files, but does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or file size limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose, examples, and a key recommendation—no wasted words.

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?

The description is fairly complete given the simple tool: it covers purpose, usage examples, and a warning. However, it lacks details about error handling or return format, and could better address sibling tool differentiation.

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 descriptions for both parameters; the tool description adds a recommendation to use last_lines, but the schema already fully explains parameter meanings, so minimal added value.

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 any file content (read-only) and provides specific use cases like config files and log paths, distinguishing from sibling tools that focus on specific logs or listings.

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 clear context for when to use (viewing config files, custom logs) and recommends using the last_lines parameter for large files, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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