read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the operation is read-only and that output is paginated by lines; it omits what happens with missing paths, permission failures, non-text/binary files, or how the host parameter affects execution.

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 tight phrase with the core action and safety profile front-loaded — no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness one.

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 simple four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: action, pagination, and non-mutating nature. It leaves gaps around file-type expectations, encoding, and error behavior, but nothing an agent strictly needs to construct a valid call is absent.

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 schema already documents host, path, limit, and offset including defaults and bounds. The description adds only the pagination concept, which the schema's limit/offset descriptions already convey, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a text file') plus a scope qualifier (line pagination), which cleanly separates it from siblings like edit_file and list_dir. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the read-only framing makes differentiation easy.

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 '(read-only)' tag implies this is the non-mutating counterpart to edit_file, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions or prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_dir for directory enumeration. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over other read paths.

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