read_text_file

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

Discloses auto-detection, UTF-8 conversion, pagination with offset/limit, truncation via maxCharacters, and return fields (totalLines, fileSizeBytes). Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and description adds valuable context beyond that, with no contradictions.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: explains core functionality, usage preferences, pagination tips, and parameter details. No redundancy; front-loaded with main action and key differentiator.

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?

Given the complexity (5 params, output schema exists in tool but not shown), the description thoroughly covers behavior, parameters, return metadata, and usage guidelines. No gaps remain for an agent to misunderstand.

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 fully explains each parameter: path (required), encoding (optional, auto-detected), offset (1-indexed start line), limit (max lines), maxCharacters (optional truncation). This compensates completely for schema gaps.

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. It specifies the resource (file) and action (read), and distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_encoding' and 'read_multiple_files'.

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?

Explicitly advises 'PREFER THIS over built-in Read for non-UTF-8 files' and provides concrete scenarios (Cyrillic, legacy codebases). It also guides on pagination for large files and using maxCharacters to prevent token overflow, covering when and when not to use.

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