read_file

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: token limit (~14k tokens), pagination metadata (has_more, next_offset), and negative offset behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds essential pagination behavior. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (pagination) but omits details on return structure. However, combined with the input schema, most semantic information is available. A brief note on output format would improve completeness.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning offset/limit for pagination. It does not explain node_ids, format, or show_formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states 'Read document content (DOCX or Google Doc)', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_comments or grep, which are more specialized reads. The addition of pagination details reinforces the purpose.

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 when full document content is needed, but it does not mention when not to use (e.g., for searching use grep) or provide alternatives. No explicit guidance on context or exclusions.

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