lifeos_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 usefully discloses that strict path validation prevents directory traversal outside the vault root, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about read-only guarantees, error behavior for missing files, or rate 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a short security note and a clearly labeled Args section. Efficient overall, though the security sentence sits between the purpose and the argument documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Path format, vault scoping, and traversal safety are covered. Missing only edge-case behavior such as a nonexistent path, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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 0% and the single parameter is only described as 'Relative Path' in the schema. The description compensates by stating the path is vault-relative and giving concrete format examples ('projects/chronolog.md', 'identity/values.md'), which adds genuine meaning.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('exact contents of a specific Markdown file from the vault'), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lifeos_search, but the 'exact contents / specific file' framing implicitly separates it from search-based retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already know the vault-relative path of a file. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer lifeos_search or lifeos_get_context instead, and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions.

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