disk_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'text content' as a limitation, implying binary files may not be supported. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, file size limits, or encoding behavior, so transparency is adequate but not extensive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally complete. It communicates the core function and one limitation, but lacks details on path conventions or potential error scenarios, which would improve completeness.

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 only defines 'path' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds that the path refers to a file on Yandex Disk, giving context to the parameter. However, it does not explain path format (e.g., relative to root, full URL) or any constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reads text content of a file on Yandex Disk, using the specific verb 'read' and the resource 'file on Yandex Disk'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like disk_list, which lists files, and disk_get_metadata, which retrieves metadata, by specifying content reading.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It states what the tool does but doesn't indicate scenarios such as binary files or path requirements, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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