read_files

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, disclosing return structure (list of dicts with keys like path, content, mimeType, isImage, encoding, encodingConfidence, error) and encoding auto-detection behavior. It implies read-only, but no mention of limits or performance.

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?

Well-formatted with Args and Returns sections, but slightly verbose. Front-loads purpose, but some lines (like encoding confidence) could be shortened.

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 output schema (described), the description covers input, output, and key behaviors. Missing context about allowed roots (sibling 'list_allowed_roots') but otherwise sufficient 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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'file_paths' as absolute paths and 'encoding' with common values ('utf-8', 'gbk', 'gb2312') and auto-detection, adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 tool reads multiple files in a single call, with a specific verb ('read') and resource ('files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' (singular) and other file operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'read_file' for single files) or when to specify encoding. The description lacks explicit context for selection.

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