read_files

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It tells the agent that reading is a non-mutating operation by using 'Read', which is useful, but it does not disclose behaviors such as limits on file size, path restrictions, handling of missing files, or whether partial results are returned if one path fails.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately, which is ideal for an agent parsing tool definitions.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate, but the complete absence of annotations and lack of any behavioral caveats (e.g., sandbox path restrictions, error behavior) leaves some gaps. Sibling tools show a file-focused cluster, so a note on when to use read_files vs execute_code to view files would improve completeness.

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% and the single parameter 'paths' is described as 'Array of file paths to read'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it conveys that contents are returned, not just metadata—but it does not clarify path format, absolute vs relative paths, or behavior when multiple paths are supplied.

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 'Read' and the resource 'file contents from the sandbox filesystem', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that write, list, remove, or execute. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with a similar sibling beyond the resource scope.

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 context implies it is the tool to use for reading files, while siblings write_files, list_files, and remove_files cover other file operations. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over execute_code or execute_command for file contents, nor does it mention that paths must be within the sandbox or that multiple paths are allowed.

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