file_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether there are size limitations, what format the content is returned in, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 file reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the file content is returned in, how errors are handled, or any limitations. Given the complexity of file operations and the lack of structured data coverage, the description should provide more complete context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the file_path parameter beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file from the workspace directory'). It distinguishes from some siblings like file_edit and file_write by focusing on reading rather than modifying files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_skills or skill-related tools, which is why it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to read files generated by skills or modified by the user'), which helps distinguish it from file_edit and file_write. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for different scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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