read_text

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It reveals reading with constraints (line/byte limits, allowed workspace). However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior (e.g., if file not found or limits exceeded), or that it is read-only. Acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the key action and constraints. No wasted words; perfectly concise for what it covers.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return format, parameter interactions, and when to use this tool. Leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'line and byte limits' which hints at start_line, end_line, max_bytes, but does not explicitly describe each parameter or their defaults. Path is implicit but not detailed. Provides some context but insufficient for full understanding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read UTF-8 text from an allowed workspace file' – specific verb and resource. Mentions line and byte limits, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like inspect_file or search_text which might also read file content.

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?

No guidance on when to use read_text versus alternatives (e.g., inspect, search_text, inspect_file). The description is too brief to provide any contextual usage advice.

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