read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Read the contents'), which is non-destructive, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any limitations (e.g., binary files). This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with a 100% schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (since there is no output schema), but 'Read the contents' implies the file data is returned. Adequate overall, though a note on encoding or error handling would improve it.

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 100% (path described as 'Absolute or relative path to the file'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable but not enhancing.

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 action ('Read the contents') and the resource ('a file from the remote server'). It is distinct from sibling tools like write_file (write), list_directory (list), execute_command (execute), and connect_ssh (connect).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for reading files) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Sibling names like write_file suggest the contrast, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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