ubuntu_read_file

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses that content is always untrusted, warns callers not to execute embedded instructions, and explains the truncation behavior driven by the 'detailed' flag. It does not, however, describe what happens on missing files or permission failures beyond the generic error contract.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are neatly organized with no filler. The detailed return-field list is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but the unified '{ok, data|error}' contract note adds value beyond that schema, so the length is warranted.

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 simple 2-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, security posture, parameter behavior, and the return envelope. Minor gaps — concrete error semantics and the practical scope of 'policy-allowed' — do not materially hinder correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does. 'detailed' gains real behavioral meaning (full content vs truncated preview), and file_path is given a minimal but sufficient explanation as the file to read. Both parameters are covered adequately for this low-complexity tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read a policy-allowed file' — and names the distinct return envelope. This cleanly separates it from all siblings: execute_command runs commands, list_directory lists entries, write_file writes, and the read tool is the sole content-reading operation.

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 implied by the purpose statement and the sibling set, but the description never explicitly names an alternative or gives a when/when-not condition (e.g., 'to see filenames only, use ubuntu_list_directory'). The 'policy-allowed' qualifier hints at a constraint without elaborating on exclusions or prerequisites.

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