Read file

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that sensitive files are blocked and that reads are restricted to an allowed root, which is useful context. However, it does not specify what counts as sensitive or what error occurs when a sensitive file is accessed.

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 the verb and object, and no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function and key constraint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It covers the core function and the allowed-root constraint but omits details about return format, maxBytes handling, and how sensitive files are blocked. For a read-only tool with clear annotations, this is minimally adequate.

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?

The schema covers filePath with 'Absolute file path inside an allowed root', but maxBytes has no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention maxBytes at all, so with only 50% schema coverage, the semantics of maxBytes are left unexplained.

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 'Read a text file inside an allowed root' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_in_project and list_project_files, which search or list rather than read file content.

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 implies usage for reading text files but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It mentions the 'allowed root' constraint, giving some context, but does not reference sibling tools like list_allowed_repositories or memory read tools.

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