Read an existing document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses format-specific normalization behavior and the fallback for unsupported formats, and the verb 'read' implies a non-destructive operation. It does not discuss authorization or error handling, but these are secondary for a simple read tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core action and supported formats, then adds normalization specifics. The bilingual duplication doubles length but is organized and not padded; it earns its place for a multilingual tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains what the returned text looks like for each format and notes the unsupported-format workaround. It omits details about the workaround's shape and error behavior, but for a local-file reader the key decision factors are covered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents lang, path, and maxChars. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond signaling supported file formats, which is already evident from the example extensions in the text; baseline 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 states a clear verb and resource: it reads a local document and returns normalized text, with concrete format mappings (CSV/TSV to Markdown, HTML/XML tag-stripped, JSON pretty-printed/outlined). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as extract_from_document or ingest_document, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 when to use the tool: for local text-based files in the listed formats, and it explicitly warns that PDF/docx/xlsx are unsupported and produce a workaround. It provides no explicit when-not or alternative tool names, leaving the choice among document-processing siblings to inference.

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