Read Multiple Files

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation (partial success behavior), mentions efficiency benefits, and specifies the directory restriction. While it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, it provides meaningful operational details that annotations alone wouldn't convey.

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 efficiently structured with four focused sentences: purpose statement, efficiency rationale, output format, and operational constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, and the comprehensive parameter documentation, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral characteristics, and constraints without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'paths' parameter. The description adds minimal additional context about path validity and directory restrictions, but doesn't provide significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously'), distinguishes it from single-file reading operations, and explicitly mentions the efficiency advantage over reading files one by one. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'read_text_file'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to analyze or compare multiple files'), when not to use it (implied: for single files, use other read tools), and mentions constraints ('Only works within allowed directories'). This gives clear context for tool selection versus alternatives.

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