Read File

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads a file but doesn't describe what happens on errors (e.g., file not found), the format of returned content, or any limitations like file size constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool that could fail or have hidden behaviors.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content as text/binary), error conditions, or operational constraints. For a file I/O tool, this leaves critical context gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'filename' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path formats or supported file types. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('a file from the shared workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like file_list or file_write, which would require mentioning it retrieves file contents rather than metadata or performing write operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose file_read over file_list (for listing files) or file_write (for writing files), nor does it specify prerequisites like file existence or permissions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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