fida_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: policy can block denied paths and secret values are redacted. This adds significant value beyond a simple read. Lacks details on return format or error handling, but acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It mentions policy enforcement and redaction, which is contextual. Could be slightly more explicit about return type, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the 'path' parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads a file's text through Fida policy. It specifies the verb 'read' and resource 'file's text', and distinguishes it from sibling 'fida_shell' by indicating it is for file reads only.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for every file read ahead of native reads, workspace context, reviewed-file context, and other MCP file tools. Provides clear context on when to use and lists alternatives.

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