fast_read_file

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It only mentions 'auto-chunking support' without explaining behavior like continuation tokens, non-destructive nature, or return format. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded with the main action and key feature. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks information on return values, error handling, pagination via continuation tokens, and when to use line-based offsets vs byte offsets.

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%, so parameter descriptions are already present in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond the overall hint of auto-chunking, which is already implied by the auto_chunk parameter default.

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 action ('Reads a file') and highlights the key feature ('auto-chunking support'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fast_read_multiple_files' or 'fast_extract_lines' by implication, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like fast_read_multiple_files or fast_extract_lines. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when to use auto-chunking vs manual chunking via start_offset/max_size.

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