read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the access restriction (only work_dir), and the return fields including truncation flag. It omits error handling and encoding details, but for a read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, access scope, and return shape.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description explains return fields and access limits, which is helpful. It does not cover edge cases like file-not-found or binary files, but for a simple read_file tool the provided context is adequate.

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 explain parameters. It partially clarifies file_path via the work_dir rule but never mentions max_bytes or how it relates to truncation. The return field 'truncated' indirectly hints, but it is not explicit enough.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('text file from the Genkai filesystem'), and adds scope ('Only files within work_dir are accessible'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files and read_job_output.

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 for reading text files within work_dir but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., read_job_output) or provide exclusion criteria. The work_dir constraint offers context but no explicit guidance.

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