Read a file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial behavior: Latin-1 decoding, the exact binary-detection heuristic (zero byte in first 4 KB), and the literal return prefix 'binary file, N bytes, base64:'. That is the kind of output-shape detail an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then output format, then failure mode and alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so precisely, including the binary case. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the path parameter already carries an example, so the description only reinforces that it is a 'full Amiga path'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for the single parameter.

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 ('Copy one file from the Amiga and return its contents'), immediately distinguishing it from write/list siblings. The parenthetical contrast with amiga_ls for directories further sharpens its identity.

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?

Gives explicit failure conditions and routes the directory case to amiga_ls, which is a real alternative pointer. It does not cover other plausible alternatives (e.g. amiga_text or amiga_write_file) or note when a bulk read is preferable, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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