rba_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the byte cap, which is useful, but fails to describe return value, error handling, or path details. Partial transparency only.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the lack of an output schema and annotations places the burden on the description to explain return values or failure modes, which it does not. An AI agent would not know what the tool returns or how errors manifest, making it incomplete.

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%, and the description does not name or explain the parameters. The phrase 'capped to a safe byte limit' hints at maxBytes but doesn't clarify its adjustable nature or the path parameter's semantics. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 action (Read), the resource (a workspace file), and includes the safety cap, which distinguishes it from siblings like rba_write_file or rba_execute_file. It is concise and specific.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this to read a file's contents. However, there is no explicit comparison with alternatives or mention of when not to use it, such as for image files or executing code.

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