read_file

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 states the tool reads full text content, which implies a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., file size, binary files, error handling). While the behavior is straightforward, the description lacks explicit disclosure beyond the basic function.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler words.

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 low complexity (one parameter, clear behavior, output schema exists), the description provides adequate context: it explains what the tool does and when to use it. It does not cover edge cases or error scenarios, but for a simple read operation, the description is fairly 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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the 'file_path' parameter has no schema-level description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, failing to provide additional meaning beyond the parameter name. The name 'file_path' is self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the schema gap, which 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 tool's purpose: 'Read and return the full text content of a file.' It provides specific verb and resource ('read file') and lists concrete use cases (inspect code, configs, logs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_in_files or write_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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('Use this to inspect existing code, configs, logs, or any text file before editing'), giving clear context and implying its role in a workflow. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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