read_addon_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope constraint ('from an addon in the workspace') and the text-file restriction; it says nothing about behavior on missing files, size or encoding limits, or path traversal rules.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though spare enough that it borders on under-specified rather than merely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the read-only safety profile. Still, for a tool resolving a game plus addon plus path, the description leaves error conditions and any constraints on the requested path unaddressed.

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 100%, with each parameter ('game', 'name', 'path') documented including format examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read a text file from an addon in the workspace. This naturally separates it from write_addon_file and get_addon, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_addon, list_addons, or write_addon_file, nor any note about prerequisites such as the addon existing or the file being text rather than binary. The use case is only implied by the verb.

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