Read a local file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses size caps, binary refusal, and filesystem confinement, which are critical behavioral traits. It doesn't detail error handling or exact return format, but the key constraints are well covered.

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 compact, with each sentence adding value: purpose, remote bridge caveat, size/binary limits, and configuration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers all key points without fluff.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and configuration. It lacks explicit return format details, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter's context (server filesystem) and implies 'maxChars' via size caps, though it doesn't explicitly name maxChars. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but could be more explicit about maxChars.

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 reads a text file from the server's filesystem for review and card integration. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on local file access, which is unique among the listed card creation and web 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?

It explicitly warns about remote bridge scenarios, advising to pass text directly to the card tool instead. It also mentions size caps and binary refusal, and provides configuration guidance via MCP_CHAT_CARDS_FS_ROOT, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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