read_text_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states the operation is non-mutating ('without modifying it') and caps the read at one MiB, which are useful behavioral guarantees. More detail on error conditions or binary-file handling would be nice, but the key safety trait is disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the target, the limit, and the non-destructive nature efficiently.

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 file-read operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what is read, from where, how much, and the non-modifying guarantee. It could add explicit notes about required access or failure modes, but the tool is straightforward enough that those omissions are not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds the one MiB limit. The parameter names (device, path, max_bytes) are reasonably self-explanatory and device has an enum, but the description does not explain how max_bytes relates to the one MiB cap, path format expectations, or any parameter-specific behavior beyond what the schema structure implies.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('text file from a named Pi') and a scope limit ('up to one MiB'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling commands that manage services, run commands, or control power, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to read a text file from a Pi. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_service_logs or run_command, but the resource and read-only nature provide enough context for correct selection.

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