read_textRead a UTF-8 text file up to 1 MiB using a workspace-relative path. Use it to inspect local text content without leaving the configured workspace.
Read a UTF-8 text file, max 1 MiB. Paths are relative to the configured workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: UTF-8 only, a 1 MiB size ceiling, and workspace-relative path resolution, all of which affect whether a call will succeed. It stops short of describing failure behavior (missing file, oversized file, non-UTF-8 bytes).
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the size and encoding constraints front-loaded before the path-resolution rule. Nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — format, size limit, and path base — is stated, making this complete enough for a one-parameter read tool.
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 0% for the single `path` parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does add real meaning — paths are resolved relative to the configured workspace and the target must be UTF-8 text within 1 MiB — though it does not clarify whether absolute paths, subdirectories, or traversal outside the workspace are permitted.
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 gives a specific verb and resource (read a UTF-8 text file) plus two hard constraints (max 1 MiB, workspace-relative paths), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_directory, which is the most plausible confusion point for a file-system tool.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' — there is no statement of when to choose this over list_directory or get_artifact_path, and no stated preconditions. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.