Ler qualquer arquivo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior with the verb 'Lê' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention error handling, path restrictions, or other behavioral traits. For a tool that reads files, this is insufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains what it does and when to use it. However, it lacks explicit safety context (since annotations are absent) and doesn't mention alternatives, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 100%: both 'path' and 'encoding' have descriptions in the schema, including examples and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Lê o conteúdo de QUALQUER arquivo do projeto por caminho' (reads the content of any project file by path). It names a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_project', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use para specs, page objects, componentes, código fonte - qualquer formato.' It tells when to use the tool but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as when not to use it or use a different tool like 'read_project'.

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