file_read_batch

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 the batched nature and that all contents are returned in one call, but omits important details such as error handling for missing files, size limits, or whether partial failures are possible. This is a notable gap for a tool with no structured safety cues.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action ('Read multiple files at once'), and includes only relevant details about performance and return behavior. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 tool is simple (single array parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys its primary function and return semantics. It lacks edge-case behavior like partial failure handling, but given the low complexity, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already fully describes the paths parameter as an array of absolute file paths, so the schema provides 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or constraints, which places it at the baseline of 3.

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 tool reads multiple files at once ('Read multiple files at once'), which is a specific action on a specific resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool file_read by emphasizing batching. It also notes the primary benefit ('better performance') and the composite return behavior.

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 phrase 'for better performance' implies the tool is intended for batch reads instead of issuing multiple individual file_read calls, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name file_read as the alternative or mention exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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