read_text_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses encoding auto-detection, UTF-8 conversion, return metadata (totalLines, fileSizeBytes), line number prefix behavior with a caution to strip it before use in edit_file, and maxCharacters to prevent token overflow. It also details offset as 1-indexed and limit as max lines, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 dense but efficient, with each sentence adding value. The parameter explanation is packed into one long but factually complete sentence; however, bullet points would improve scannability. The pagination example is a useful addition that justifies its length.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return metadata, and even includes a concrete paging example. Since an output schema exists, detailed return structure is unnecessary. For a tool with 6 parameters, this description is remarkably complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining every parameter: path is implicit, encoding auto-detected, offset as 1-indexed start line, limit as max lines, maxCharacters to avoid token overflow, and lineNumbers with default false and prefix format. It also provides a pagination example demonstrating offset/limit usage, making parameter semantics clear.

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 a file with encoding auto-detection and converts to UTF-8, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the built-in Read tool by specifically targeting non-UTF-8 files, making its purpose unique among siblings.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER THIS over built-in Read for non-UTF-8 files (Cyrillic, legacy codebases)', giving clear when-to-use guidance and naming an alternative. It also provides concrete pagination instructions for files larger than 2000 lines, showing exactly how to structure offset and limit for subsequent reads.

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