Read an arbitrary panel file

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

The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the read scope (anything the panel user can read, explicitly including secrets-bearing config and DB files) and the env-var gate that determines success or refusal. It does not explain why such a read is flagged destructive/not read-only, but the gate disclosure is the operationally important part.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope and followed by the gating condition; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, representative targets, and the precondition for success. It omits error behavior and any size/permission limits, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 single 'path' parameter is already documented as an absolute host path. The description's example paths illustrate what is targeted but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read any file readable by the panel user') and immediately scopes the danger with concrete examples (config.json, database files). An agent can distinguish this from danger_write_file, site_get_config, or db_list without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a real availability condition ('Refused unless AAPANEL_ALLOW_DANGEROUS is set'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over narrower siblings like site_get_config or danger_write_file, leaving the choice implicit.

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