read_file

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

No annotations are present. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., file not found), permissions required, or that reading may be restricted. It merely states the basic function without beyond what is obvious.

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 fluff. However, it is overly brief, sacrificing essential information for brevity. It earns its place but could be more informative.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the partial reading feature, return format, or any edge cases. The minimal description does not cover the complexity of three parameters.

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 has 0% coverage with no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (relative_path, start_line, line_count), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them meaningfully.

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) and resource (a workspace-contained UTF-8 text file). It specifies encoding and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like list_files (which lists files) and workspace_info (which provides workspace metadata), though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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