file.read

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior context: UTF-8 encoding and path resolution semantics. These details affect how the agent should construct calls and interpret results.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the important path-resolution caveat is included without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the operation and path behavior, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. However, task_id is left unexplained and there is no output schema or statement about return content, so an agent must infer part of the contract.

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 description partially explains the 'path' parameter via relative/absolute path semantics, but it does not explain the required 'task_id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to carry more of this burden.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Read a UTF-8 file.' It is distinguishable from siblings like file.write and file.patch by the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from file.search.

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 path-resolution rule is a useful usage guideline: relative paths use the Task worktree; absolute paths use the host OS. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer file.read over alternatives like file.search, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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