Read a remote text file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important behavioral detail that binary files are refused, which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 sentence plus a parenthetical alternative. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every word earns its place—no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior and the binary refusal. It doesn't address error cases (e.g., file not found) but that's minor given the tool's simplicity and strong annotation coverage. Slightly more detail about failure behavior would push it to 5, but it's already solid.

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?

All three parameters (path, server, max_bytes) have descriptions in the schema, so the schema carries heavy weight. The tool description adds no new information about parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('remote text file') and explicitly distinguishes itself from ftp_download by refusing binary files. An agent can immediately tell this is the text-reading tool versus the binary-download sibling.

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 names the alternative (ftp_download) and the condition that triggers it (binary files are refused). This gives clear direction on when to use this tool versus the sibling, leaving no ambiguity.

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