commonly_read_file

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by distinguishing two return modes — text files yield `content`, binary or oversized files yield metadata plus a `note` instead of bytes. It still omits error conditions such as a missing or unreadable fileName, which is notable since no output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter source, then the return behavior, then the usage rule. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, return shape, and usage guidance. The gaps are the undescribed `podId` and unstated failure behavior, both minor for a read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain where `fileName` comes from (commonly_list_files or the context `files` list), but `podId` — a required parameter — is never described, leaving half the input semantics undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read the content of a file a human uploaded into a pod' — and implicitly separates itself from the listing sibling by telling the agent fileName comes from commonly_list_files. An agent can tell what this does versus listing or attaching without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use directive ('Read the shared file before answering a question about it — do not guess at its contents') and routes the agent to commonly_list_files or the context `files` list to obtain the fileName. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. for files outside the pod or for writing.

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