read_multiple_files

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions output format (content separated by clear headers) but omits behavioral details like truncation at max_lines_each, permissions, or encoding. The schema partially covers max_lines_each, but the description should restate this.

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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the main action, then provides use case and output behavior. No redundant words.

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 presence of an output schema and complete input schema, the description adds value by specifying the output format. It is almost complete but lacks mention of error conditions or file type restrictions beyond 'text files'.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of paths, or implications of max_lines_each). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Lee' (reads) and the resource 'varios ficheros de texto' (multiple text files). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'read_file' by emphasizing multiple files in a single call.

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 usage context: 'Útil para comparar ficheros o cargar múltiples módulos de una vez.' It suggests when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives like 'read_file'.

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