read_file

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: files are 'bounded' and 'secret-like paths are blocked.' This clarifies size limits and access restrictions, which are not present in the annotations.

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 filler. It communicates the core action, the scope, the encoding, and a key limitation in minimal words.

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 simplicity of the tool and the rich annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key safety constraints. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and detailed parameter semantics, leaving non-obvious gaps around max_bytes and when to prefer this tool over sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but the missing usage context prevents a higher score.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at the max_bytes concept through 'bounded' and at path scope via 'under the configured workspace,' but it never explicitly explains max_bytes semantics, the default value, or what happens when the bound is exceeded. Path is only minimally contextualized as a UTF-8 text file.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('a bounded UTF-8 text file under the configured workspace'), and adds a distinct constraint ('secret-like paths are blocked'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files and search_text, which involve listing and searching rather than reading file contents.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or search_text. The intended context ('read file contents') is only implied by the verb and resource; there are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative references.

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