project.files.read.v1

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 does not mention error handling for nonexistent files, whether large files are truncated, encoding assumptions, or what the response structure looks like. Since there is an output schema, some return structure may be captured there, but behavior around access, errors, and file-size limits is undisclosed.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal and front-loaded for such a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, text-only reads), the description is adequate but not complete. The output schema exists, which likely covers return values. However, it lacks details on file-size limits, error cases, path conventions, and differentiation from the closely named sibling 'read_project_file.' For a single-verb single-parameter tool this is acceptable but leaves notable gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter (path) and schema description coverage is 0%, which is low. The description adds 'text file' indicating non-binary files, but does not clarify whether path is relative to WP_PROJECT_ROOT, whether absolute paths are allowed, or expected format (e.g., leading slashes). With a single parameter and a naming convention suggesting 'project.files' scope, the description does not significantly enrich the schema's bare 'path' string.

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 'Read text file from WP_PROJECT_ROOT,' which specifies a verb (read) and a resource (text file within a project root). It's clear about the tool's basic function, but does not describe what content is returned, whether binary files are supported, or how it differs from the sibling 'read_project_file' tool whose name suggests overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'read_project_file' or 'content.list.v1.' There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must exist, path requirements) or when an alternative should be chosen. The context implies it's for reading text files from a project root directory, but this is only implicit.

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