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. It states the core behavior (return full text content) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., permission issues, file not found), encoding details, or whether the operation is non-destructive. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the main action ('Read and return the full text content') and follows with the target ('a file at the given path'). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter, and an output schema exists (though not shown), which may cover return value details. The description is concise and adequate for a basic read operation. It lacks error handling or edge-case context, but given the low complexity, this is not a critical shortcoming.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'path' with zero description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning by referencing 'the given path,' clarifying that the path is used to locate the file. However, it does not specify path format, whether relative or absolute, or any constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'read and return the full text content of a file at the given path.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like write_file, delete_file, and update_file, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage (when you need to read a file, use this tool), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks guidance on scenarios like handling directories or non-existent files.

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