read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: reading over SFTP, size cap via max_bytes, and default policy. However, it omits error handling, authentication needs, and handling of missing files or binary content.

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 paragraphs: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise argument list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavior adequately. It lacks guidance on error conditions or security, but for a simple read tool it is nearly 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?

Since schema property descriptions are missing (0% coverage), the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: host as alias, path as absolute/relative, max_bytes with default behavior. This compensates well, though some details (e.g., host alias format) are absent.

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 verb (Read), resource (remote file), method (over SFTP), and constraint (size-capped). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_dir and run_command by specifying its exact function.

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 the tool is for reading files, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., list_dir for directory listings) or when not to use it. No prerequisites mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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