Read project file

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: path constraints to the root, exclusion of credential files, and types of files that are readable. This helps the agent understand both scope and limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then providing constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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?

With two simple parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotence, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, safety exclusions, and accessibility. It doesn't detail error behavior or return format, but the output schema exists, and these are minor for a read operation. The description is sufficiently complete for 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'project' is the selected project and 'path' is the file path, and that both are constrained to the root. However, it does not specify whether the path is relative to the project root or absolute, nor does it give format examples. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 one UTF-8 text file') and the resource ('from a selected project'). It adds specific constraints (root path, credential exclusions) that distinguish it from sibling tools like write_file, apply_patch, and list_files. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to read a UTF-8 text file within a project, with exclusions for credentials and permission for Git files, dependencies, and runtime config. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the constraints imply when this tool is appropriate versus write/patch tools. The lack of explicit 'use instead of X' guidance prevents a 5.

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