ralph.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 discloses the file scope ('inside the repo') and path convention ('repo-relative'), but does not describe return value, error behavior, or explicitly confirm it has no side effects beyond the verb 'Read' implying them.

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 sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the phase-specific guidance is concise and useful.

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 one-parameter, straightforward read operation with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It provides the operation, path convention, and intended phase, but it omits explicit return-value or error details, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that relativePath is repo-relative, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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'), a specific resource ('any text file inside the repo'), and the required identifier ('repo-relative path'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ralph.list_files and ralph.read_state.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this during Phase 2 to explore source code and inform spec and fix-plan authoring.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is concrete enough for an agent to know when it applies.

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