xcode_read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify error handling (e.g., for missing files), permissions required, output format (e.g., text, binary), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Read contents of a file') and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content as string, error messages), behavioral details, or usage context. For a tool with no structured support, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with 'file_path' clearly documented as 'Path to the file to read'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter.

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 'Read contents of a file' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools (though no obvious reading siblings exist in the provided list), and the title is null, so it relies solely on this brief description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions), context (e.g., Xcode project files vs. general files), or comparisons to other tools in the server, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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