read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important constraints: UTF-8 handling, an authorized root, and a strict byte limit. However, it does not explain what happens when the limit is exceeded (truncation vs. error), how binary or non-UTF-8 files are handled, or permission failure behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. Every phrase contributes a useful constraint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is too thin. It omits error behavior, truncation semantics, return shape, and usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies that `path` must be under an authorized root and that `maxBytes` enforces a byte limit, but it does not clarify path format, whether paths are relative or absolute, or the default/maximum byte behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Read a UTF-8 text file") and adds scoping qualifiers ("under an authorized root with a strict byte limit"). This clearly distinguishes reading file contents from siblings such as list_directory, get_file_metadata, and search_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?

It states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of get_file_metadata or search_files. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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