msf_file_read

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world safety, and the description adds real value beyond them: output is lossless base64 chunks, pagination is driven by next_offset, and it runs with the MCP host's OS permissions. It doesn't cover EOF or error behavior, but with an output schema present that burden is light.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then the security caveat. No padding.

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 paginated read tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers action, chunking, continuation, and permission scope. Minor gaps (EOF signalling, path absoluteness) exist but don't block correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies offset is a continuation cursor ('continue using next_offset') but never explains max_bytes (chunk size) or the units/limits of either parameter, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a local file') plus the encoding and chunking model, which clearly separates it from siblings like msf_file_list and msf_file_write. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

'Use for generated binaries, loot, reports, resource scripts, or modules' gives concrete when-to-use context, and 'continue using next_offset' implies the follow-up call pattern. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing is given.

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