read_prompt_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a read operation (implying no side effects) but does not mention any potential failure modes, return format, or constraints (e.g., file must exist, be on-disk as opposed to custom prompt). The description merely restates the tool name in a fuller sentence without adding behavioral depth.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter. It could be slightly more expansive to cover usage, but for efficiency it earns a high score.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no annotations) but having an output schema, the description does not explain what is returned or how errors are handled. It also does not clarify the relationship to list_prompt_files or custom prompts, which is a gap given the sibling context. The description is too brief to be fully useful on its own.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the 'name' parameter ('Filename from `list_prompt_files`'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds a minimal amount ('on-disk' hints at the source) but does not enrich the meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('read') and resource ('one on-disk prompt file'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. It differentiates from siblings like list_prompt_files (which lists) and write_prompt_file (which writes) by the verb and 'on-disk' qualifier. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns the file content, which is implied but not stated.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for reading contents of files listed by list_prompt_files, nor does it contrast with custom prompt operations like get_custom_prompt. An agent would have to infer the usage context from the name and schema alone.

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