read_project_file

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does unusually well: it discloses the access-control boundary ('secrets and paths outside the repository are blocked') and encoding constraints (UTF-8), which are exactly the failure modes an agent will hit. It does not disclose size limits, truncation, or whether a missing file errors vs. returns empty, holding it back from a 5.

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 short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two constraints that determine correct invocation. Nothing extraneous.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, path format, and security boundary. It does not say what the return value looks like (file content string) or how errors surface (blocked path vs. nonexistent path), which an agent would benefit from given there is no output schema to consult.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'path' has no description at all, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Paths are repository-relative' specifies the exact format expected and 'paths outside the repository are blocked' states the constraint. Minor gap: no example syntax or leading-slash behavior.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read a UTF-8 text file in the open repository.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like write_project_file and delete_project_file, and implicitly from list_project_files. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage via 'in the open repository' and 'repository-relative' paths, which nudges the agent toward open_repository first, but it never states when to use this versus search_project_code or list_project_files, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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