ha_read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It specifies the file is read from the server and the path convention, but does not mention important traits such as file size limits, encoding, error handling for missing files, or that it is a read-only operation (though implied).

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 short sentences that front-load the key information. Every word is necessary and nothing is redundant. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the path and scope. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., file content as a string) which would be helpful for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'path' is described fully). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description and example, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional value.

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 action ('Read a file'), the resource ('a file from the Home Assistant server'), and the scope ('Path is relative to /config/'). This distinguishes it from sibling file tools that delete, check existence, or list files.

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 usage for reading file content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ha_file_exists or ha_delete_file. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or limitations.

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