read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it reads and shows the file being opened and scrolled, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not clarify whether the content is returned to the agent, how errors are handled, or if any special permissions are needed. The visual 'show' behavior is a useful but incomplete disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence without redundancy. It is relatively front-loaded, stating the primary action and the distinctive visual behavior. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the phrase 'show it being opened and scrolled' is ambiguous—it does not clearly state whether the tool returns the file content for programmatic use or merely displays it on the virtual screen, which could affect agent behavior when selecting and using the tool. This is a notable gap given the sibling tools include write/edit operations.

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 100% for the single parameter 'path', which already documents it as a UTF-8 text file path relative to /workspace. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not go further.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'UTF-8 text file', plus an extra behavior (showing it opened/scrolled). It distinguishes from siblings like write_file and edit_file implicitly by focusing on reading, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The virtual computer context is unique enough to set it apart from terminal_execute or list_directory.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like terminal_execute (which could also cat a file) or list_directory. There is no explicit guidance, no exclusions, and no conditions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.

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