read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the ability to read line ranges and tail behavior, but it does not mention error handling, permissions, or behavior for non-text files. It adds some context but leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by two concise usage tips. It earns every word and is easy to parse.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key contextual aspects: file size handling and tail usage. It lacks details on return format or error cases, but these are not essential for basic operation. The guidance on large files is especially valuable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of lines+offset for large files and tail for log files. This effectively clarifies how parameters interact and when to use them.

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's function: 'Read a file or specific line range from a remote server.' It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (file from remote server), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the ability to read specific ranges and from the end. This differentiates it from search/replace/write tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for large files ('always use lines+offset') and for logs ('use tail=true'). It lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions, but the context is clear. It doesn't say 'use this instead of X', but it gives actionable rules for parameter selection.

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