Read document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool does ('extract text') without mentioning return format, file size limits, encoding handling, or whether the operation is read-only, though read-only is implied. This sparse disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 a single sentence, immediately states the action and target, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential fact that it returns text from a file. The absence of usage alternatives and behavioral caveats slightly lowers the score, but the core invocation context is sufficiently clear.

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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'path' is described as 'Absolute path'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating 'a file', which does not enhance the schema's already clear parameter documentation. Baseline 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 'Extract text from a file' uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('file'), clearly distinguishing the reading operation from sibling tools list_documents and search_documents. The purpose is unambiguous and directly matches the tool name.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention list_documents or search_documents, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the correct context from the tool name and siblings.

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