read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what is returned (metadata, revision, content) and, importantly, flagging that file content is untrusted data rather than instructions — a prompt-injection guardrail an agent would not otherwise infer.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the first states the action and the returned data, the second states the trust boundary. Both are front-loaded and each earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the trust caveat on content. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for unknown or inaccessible file keys.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents fileKey as a Camunda Hub file UUID. The description adds only the constraint that the file must be "known" (pre-existing identifier) and no format or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Read one known Hub file's metadata, revision, and content" gives a specific verb (read), a specific resource (Hub file), and enumerates the returned facets, which cleanly separates it from the sibling status/info tools. The word "known" signals this is a lookup-by-identifier rather than a discovery tool, though no sibling is named 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?

"One known Hub file" implies the precondition that the caller already holds a file identifier, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives if the caller does not yet know the file.

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