Read Vault File

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context not present in annotations: it explains output forms (paginated text, MCP image content, unsupported status), format-type branching, and delegation behavior for Markdown. This exceeds the minimum expected from annotated tools.

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 two sentences with high information density. The first sentence anchors the tool's core purpose; the second efficiently lists format-specific behavior. Every clause contributes useful details without repetition or irrelevant padding.

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?

This is a multi-format file reader with branching behavior, but the description covers all main output modes: Markdown delegation, text extraction with pagination, image content, and unsupported binary fallback. Combined with complete schema descriptions, this is sufficient for an agent to predict and interpret results.

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%, so all six parameters are individually documented. The description adds a context-level explanation of pagination and image output, but does not enrich semantics for specific parameters like sheet, slide, or offset. The schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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's function: reading any indexed vault file. It also distinguishes itself from the read_note sibling by specifying that Markdown files delegate to read_note, while other formats return extracted text or image content. This is a specific verb-resource pairing with explicit 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 description gives clear context for when read_file is appropriate: for PDFs, Office documents, images, and other non-Markdown files. It also implies that Markdown reading should go through read_note. However, it does not explicitly say 'use read_note instead of read_file for Markdown,' so the guidance is clear but slightly indirect.

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