read_multiple_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: concurrent execution and partial results when individual reads fail. That failure-isolation detail is valuable context an agent could not infer from 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?

Four short sentences, with the primary scope and the usage preference front-loaded before the failure semantics and parameter recap. Tight overall, with only minor redundancy in restating the schema-declared parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the description's coverage of concurrency, failure isolation, and encoding, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does: paths as a required array and encoding as optional with per-file auto-detection. The auto-detection note adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format examples.

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 (read) and resource (multiple files) with the added scope of concurrency and encoding support, which distinguishes it from the single-file read_text_file sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling directly, but the plural/encoding scope makes the distinction clear.

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?

"PREFER THIS when reading several non-UTF-8 files at once" gives an explicit when-to-use condition that implicitly routes the agent away from single-file readers. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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