read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the qualifiers 'real-time' and 'text file', indicating the tool fetches live content and only supports text files. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any limitations beyond text-only.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 simple file-reading tool with a fully described schema, this description is largely complete. It would benefit from explicitly stating the return value (file content) and handling of binary files, but the 'text file content' wording partially covers this.

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 100% since both 'path' and 'ref' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter meaning, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 text file content from the ant-design/ant-design repository, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (list_directory, get_repository) by focusing on content retrieval rather than directory listing or repo metadata.

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 implies usage via its purpose—if you need file content, use read_file—but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like list_directory. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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