faf_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the path restriction behavior, which is important for security. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found, encoding issues) or the return format, which limits 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key constraint but omits expected return type (file contents) and error scenarios. Given the complexity, it is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond restating the path restriction. Since the schema already covers the parameter, the description should ideally add usage details (e.g., format requirements), but it does not.

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 action 'Read a file' and the constraint 'within the project root (cwd / FAF_ALLOWED_ROOTS)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_write and faf_list by implying reading content rather than writing or listing, but does not explicitly differentiate from faf_list.

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 a key safety condition: paths escaping the project are refused. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., faf_list for file listing, faf_about for metadata). The usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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