read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read file content' and fails to mention key behaviors such as the requirement for explicit user approval when allow_external_access is true, or any security implications. This is a significant gap for a tool with a permission-sensitive parameter.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a perfect score for structure and conciseness.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description lacks critical contextual information such as output format, behavior for external files, and prerequisite conditions. Even with well-documented parameters, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves the agent under-informed about the tool's full behavior.

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 both parameters (filePath and allow_external_access) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'read' and resource 'file content', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_dir or get_file_info, though it does not explicitly mention scope or external access.

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 through its direct statement, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is self-evident, so a score of 3 reflects the implied usage.

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