ck_fs_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly declares read-only behavior and that no files are modified or created. It also explains windowed reading capability. This is transparent and sufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then provides specific details and alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use parameters, and when to use alternatives. It is complete enough for correct invocation without ambiguity.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the purpose of start_line and max_lines for windowed reads and emphasizing that path must be relative. While some info repeats schema, the extra usage guidance justifies a 4.

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 a file from the project root, is read-only, and distinguishes from siblings (ck_fs_find, ck_fs_grep, ck_fs_ls) by specifying when to use each. The verb 'read' and resource 'file' are specific, and the description covers key details like relative paths and windowed reads.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('inspect a file at a known path') and provides clear alternatives for other operations (locating files, searching content, listing directories). It also explains when to use start_line and max_lines for large files, giving clear usage context.

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