read_file

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond annotations: path validation against the root and refusal of escaping symlinks. It does not mention max_bytes truncation behavior, permissions, or return format, but the added security constraint is meaningful.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the security constraint follows immediately. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return format need not be explained) and readOnlyHint, the description covers the operation and path-safety model. However, with 0% schema coverage it should clarify the two parameters, especially max_bytes truncation, which is an invisible behavioral choice.

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 the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It does not explain rel_path (relative to the configured root) or max_bytes (truncation limit) at all, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource (read a file's contents) and adds scope ('from the configured root'). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file_markdown, read_files_batch, and get_chunk, which have different output formats or scopes.

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 a clear boundary ('configured root') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over read_file_markdown, read_files_batch, or get_chunk. Usage is implied by the purpose, but alternative selection is left to the agent.

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