read_text_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the file is read as UTF-8 and that output is capped, which is useful, but it omits details such as what happens with oversized files, invalid paths, or non-text content.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Read a UTF-8 text file') and adds a relevant constraint ('capped') without wasting 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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, the description leaves gaps: no guidance on path handling, no explicit tie between the cap and `max_chars`, and no mention of edge cases or alternatives. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only alludes to capping without explicitly explaining the `path` or `max_chars` parameters. The parameter names and schema types provide some meaning, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 ('a UTF-8 text file'), clearly conveying the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like search_files or list_directory, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 when to use the tool—whenever file contents are needed—but offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., binary files, large files, or search scenarios).

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