files.read_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Read a filesystem path' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify what 'read' entails (e.g., returns file contents, metadata, or existence), permissions required, error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Read a filesystem path.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and target.

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 tool's complexity (filesystem operations can involve permissions, formats, and errors), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how it handles errors, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'path' undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'path' represents (e.g., absolute/relative path, file/directory), format constraints, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Read a filesystem path' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('filesystem path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'files.get' or 'files.list', leaving ambiguity about what specific reading operation it performs compared to alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'files.get' or 'files.list'. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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