read_text_file

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: 'bounded' signals that reads may be partial/truncated, 'UTF-8' discloses an encoding assumption, and 'approved workspace' signals sandboxing restrictions. It stops short of error behavior, what happens when end_line is omitted, or any size limit, which are the traits an agent most needs from an unannotated read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is part of why the parameter gaps go unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no stated preconditions beyond 'approved workspace'. For a read tool whose main ambiguity is line-range behavior, the description is not complete enough to call it confidently without guessing.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails. 'Excerpt' hints at the start_line/end_line pair but does not explain their defaults, inclusivity, or what happens when end_line is null; 'path' constraints are only vaguely implied by 'approved workspace'.

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 names a specific verb and resource (read a text file) and adds meaningful scope: 'bounded UTF-8 excerpt' and 'approved workspace file'. It implicitly separates itself from whole-workspace tools like search_workspace_text or grep, but never names an alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_workspace_text, grep, get_file_metadata, or list_directory. The only contextual hint is 'approved workspace file', which constrains the target but says nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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