Retrieve a file's contents from a workspace, with utf8 or base64 encoding for text or binary data, enabling access to APK resources during reverse-engineering.
Read a file's contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encoding | No | Default utf8; use base64 for binary files. | |
| filePath | Yes | ||
| workspace | No | Workspace name (not id) - created automatically if it doesn't exist yet. Defaults to "default". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool reads contents. It does not mention that reading a file may auto-create a workspace, that binary files require base64 encoding, or any side effects or limitations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of helpful context.
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 basic file-read tool, the schema provides enough parameter detail to invoke it correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around return values, binary handling, and how this tool relates to sibling tools.
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 already documents encoding and workspace with useful descriptions, covering two of three parameters. The main description adds no parameter-level detail, and the filePath parameter remains undocumented, but schema coverage is sufficient to hit the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a file's contents'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_files or search_code, but the intended action is clear enough for basic selection.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or search_code. No context is given about prerequisites, binary file handling, or scenarios where read_file is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.