Read a file in WSL

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: oversized files truncate to leading bytes instead of failing, and zero-size-reporting files (/proc, /sys) are read in full up to the ceiling. It omits error behavior for missing or unreadable paths, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the truncation safety guarantee, then the /proc and /sys edge case. No redundancy and the most decision-relevant information is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain the shape of the response (contents, possibly truncated). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error handling and encoding details are missing.

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%, so the schema already documents path, session and maxBytes. The description nonetheless adds meaning to maxBytes by framing it against the truncation "ceiling" and the oversized-file behavior, reinforcing how the parameter interacts with the read ceiling.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("a text file in the distro") with the outcome ("return its contents"). This implicitly distinguishes it from wsl_write_file, wsl_list_dir, wsl_upload and wsl_exec, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied (safe for large logs, works on pseudo-files) but the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives like wsl_exec with a cat command or wsl_download for binary transfers. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so guidance is only implied.

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