read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by explaining offset/limit behavior and cross-reference to patch_file. Does not disclose rate limits or file size limits, but adequate for a read-only 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?

Two clear paragraphs: first defining purpose, second explaining advanced usage. Front-loaded, no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, description explains that line-numbered content is returned when offset/limit are used. However, it doesn't confirm the return format for full file reads. Still complete enough for a simple read tool.

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 already fully describes parameters (100% coverage). Description adds meaning about offset/limit being 1-indexed and omitting them meaning read from start/to end, but this is already inferable from schema descriptions.

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?

Describes reading file content, specifying project_id and path, which is clear. However, with siblings like list_files and grep, it doesn't explicitly distinguish its purpose from them (e.g., single-file full content vs. listing or searching).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use offset/limit (to avoid large files blowing context), and mentions that line-numbered output aids subsequent patch_file calls. This provides clear context-aware guidance.

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