read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scoping constraint of res:// or user:// paths, which is useful, but does not elaborate on error handling or return behavior. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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 read operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it reads and from where. No output schema exists, but the tool's simplicity means the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by res:// (or user://) path' clarifies the expected format, which is essential for correct invocation. It does not explain whether the path is case-sensitive or how to reference files outside these schemes, but the key semantic is provided.

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 reads a text file, using the specific verb 'Read' and identifying the resource type ('text file') and path scheme ('res:// or user://'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_script or logs_read.

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 implies the tool is for reading text files from Godot's res:// or user:// paths, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as search_files or read_script. There are no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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