file_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the file type and path constraint but does not disclose behavior on missing files, return format, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. For a read tool, this is minimal but expected; however, it lacks explicit non-destructive assurance.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the critical path constraint efficiently.

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 file read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits details like return value semantics and potential errors. It is adequate for typical use but not exhaustive; more context could be given on encoding behavior or binary file handling.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful clarification that the path is relative to the sandbox base directory, which is a constraint not fully captured in the schema's brief description. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 the contents of a text file, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_write, file_list, and file_info through the name and the explicit 'read' action.

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 provides a key usage constraint—path must be relative to the sandbox base directory—but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_info or file_search. Usage context is largely implied by the tool's name.

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