read_file

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

The description discloses that the tool resolves path to doc_id automatically, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, error behavior, or side effects. The read operation is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 and well-structured: a brief statement of purpose, a key behavioral note, and clear parameter and return explanations. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the main functionality, return fields, and paths. It could mention edge cases like missing files or path formats, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a read operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description compensates by explaining share_id as UUID and file_path with an example (e.g., 'Marketing/plan.md'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though no validation details are given.

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 that the tool reads a file from a folder share using a path. It specifies the resource ('folder share') and verb ('Read'), and differentiates from siblings like list_files and read_document by being the recommended method for reading files from folder shares.

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 says 'This is the recommended way to read files from folder shares,' implying it's preferred over alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention specific alternatives like read_document. More explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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