finder_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: UTF-8 encoding only, a 1 MiB maximum, and the authorized-roots boundary with permissions: none. What it lacks is any note on error behavior for files outside roots or exceeding the size limit.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying the resource, encoding, scope, and size limit, followed by compact bracketed metadata. No wasted words; the operative constraint appears first.

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, fully-annotated read tool with a 100%-covered single parameter and a declared output schema, the definition is nearly complete. Only the failure-mode behavior (missing file, out-of-root path, oversize file) is left unstated, which is a minor omission.

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% and the single path parameter is already documented as an absolute path within authorized roots, so the schema carries the load. The description's 'within authorized roots' phrasing echoes the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (UTF-8 text file) plus scope (within authorized roots) and a size bound, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like finder_open_file or finder_search_files, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative (e.g. finder_search_files for locating a file, finder_open_file for launching one). With over 60 sibling tools, the absence of routing guidance for a read operation is a real gap.

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