read_file_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional encoding and line range, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or impacts of parameters like maxCharacters. The description is minimal and lacks safety or side-effect details.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Read the contents of a file') and then lists the main optional modifiers. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 relatively simple with a clear read-only purpose, but lacks annotations and an output schema. The description does not explicitly state what is returned (e.g., file content as a string) or how errors are handled, leaving some gaps. However, the schema covers parameter constraints well enough to keep this at a minimum viable level.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does add brief context by summarizing 'optional encoding and line range', which aligns with startLine/endLine and encoding params. However, it adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's detailed parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the contents of a file' with specific optional capabilities ('optional encoding and line range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file_code, delete_file_code, and search_files_code.

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 usage for reading file contents and mentions optional encoding/line range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is limited to inferred use cases.

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