apple_files_read_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in annotations: reads are 'bounded' (implying truncation via maxBytes) and only 'allowed regular files' are accepted (implying a path allowlist / non-directory constraint). It does not say what happens on encoding failure, unreadable paths, or oversized files, so it stops short of rich behavioral 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?

Two tightly written sentences, no filler, with the read-only/bounded contract front-loaded and the format exclusion second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a caller receives; 'read bounded UTF-8 text' implies a string result but omits whether truncation is signaled, how errors surface, and path resolution rules. Adequate for a simple idempotent read, but the parameter and return-shape gaps leave an agent to guess.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. 'Bounded' loosely gestures at maxBytes but never explains truncation behavior, the default, or the upper bound, and 'allowed regular file' hints at path validation without stating expected path form (absolute, ~ expansion) or the allowed root. Two undocumented parameters with only oblique hints warrants a 2.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read bounded UTF-8 text') and explicitly carves out what it is not for ('Does not parse Pages, PDF, or other binary formats'), which distinguishes it from siblings like apple_pages_read_text and the TextEdit readers. An agent can classify this as a raw plain-text file reader without opening the schema.

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 exclusion of Pages/PDF/binary formats implies when this tool applies versus format-aware readers, but the description never names an alternative tool or states a positive use condition beyond 'allowed regular file'. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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