read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, encoding, or line range semantics (though line range is covered by the schema). It is adequate but minimal, not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful usage hint. There is zero filler, and every word earns its place.

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, with a well-documented schema. The description provides sufficient context for a basic read operation, including the prerequisite step of listing files. While there is no output schema, the return value (file content) is obvious. Missing details like error handling are minor and expected for such a straightforward tool.

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% for all three parameters (path, startLine, endLine), with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Read a text file from the workspace.' This is a specific, unambiguous action that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files (listing) and search_context (searching). The inclusion of 'text file' also scopes the tool's domain.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use list_files first to discover available files,' providing clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool relative to the siblings. It implies that read_file is for after discovery, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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