read_file

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds that only text files are handled and that reads are scoped to a project. It says nothing about behavior on a missing path, encoding, size limits, or what the response contains, so added value is modest.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded. The trailing qualifier about clients is long-winded but does earn its place as usage guidance.

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, no parameter descriptions, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition should explain the return value (file contents as text) and failure behavior. Neither appears, leaving meaningful gaps for a two-parameter tool an agent will call blind.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only loosely implies that a path is relative to the given project. It never mentions the path default of "page.html", the required project parameter, or expected path format.

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 and resource ("Read a text file") plus a scope ("from a project"), which is clearly distinct from sibling write_file. It doesn't name siblings explicitly, but the read/write split is unambiguous.

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?

"for clients with no file tools of their own" gives a real condition for when this tool applies rather than native file access. No when-not guidance or alternative named among the other siblings, but the context is clear enough to select it.

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