read_requirement_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention file size limits, encoding, or error behavior. The listed formats add some context.

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?

Single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists supported formats. No superfluous content.

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, the description covers the main purpose and supported formats. However, it does not specify the return type or content (e.g., whether it returns raw text or a structured object), which could be helpful since there is no output schema.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by listing supported file extensions and noting paths can be relative or absolute, which is beyond the schema's 'Path to requirement file' description.

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 requirement files from the filesystem and lists supported formats. It is specific about the resource (requirement files) and action (read), but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'scan_requirement_directory'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_requirement_directory'. It does not specify prerequisites or situations where this tool is preferred.

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