Read a remote file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavior disclosure. It states output is 'as text' and 'raw contents,' which is helpful, but it does not address edge cases like binary file handling, file-not-found errors, or size limits. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information (purpose, usage guidance, shortcut options). There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 simplicity, the output schema covers return values, and the description covers purpose, usage, and path/shortcut behavior. It lacks explicit details on failure modes or limits, but for a basic read tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 explains the `file` parameter thoroughly, including shortcuts. The description adds context about absolute paths and shortcuts, but it enumerates only three shortcuts ('ini', 'sandbox', 'spawnregions') while the schema also includes 'spawnpoints,' creating a slight inconsistency. The description still adds value with examples of full file types.

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 the tool's function as 'Read a file from the gameserver as text,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pz_write_file (write), pz_list_files (list), and pz_tail_log (tail) by emphasizing raw full contents and providing examples such as SandboxVars.lua, a log, or a save file.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Call this when you need the raw contents.' This clearly signals when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It implies a distinction from tailing or listing by focusing on full file reads.

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