read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key constraint: only files within registered project paths can be read, which is valuable. It does not mention error handling or return format, but for a read-only operation this is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences: first states the action, second gives usage, third gives a limitation. No redundant information, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage, and constraints sufficiently. The sibling tools have different functions, so no further context is needed.

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 input schema already describes 'path' as an absolute path, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond referencing a 'specific file', so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance.

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 uses the specific verb 'reads and returns' with the resource 'specific file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code and get_file_tree. It also adds context about checking full contents of files from search results.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: to check the full contents of a file found in search results. It also mentions the constraint of only registered project paths, implying not for external files, but doesn't name specific alternative tools.

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