read_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions UTF-8 encoding and path permissions, but omits details like error handling for missing files, permission denials, or file size limits. The agent cannot fully anticipate 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 description is a single, direct sentence without extraneous information. It front-loads the key action, making it easy to parse. Slightly more structure (e.g., separating purpose from constraints) could improve, but it is efficient.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks information about return values, error cases, and performance considerations. For an agent to use it confidently, more context is needed.

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?

The description adds context to the 'path' parameter (a file path to a UTF-8 text file), which is not in the schema. However, it does not clarify path formats (absolute/relative) or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, this adds some but not full value.

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 action ('Read a UTF-8 text file') and the resource (file at a permitted path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like write_file, delete_path, and copy_file by specifying it is for reading text 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as handling binary files, large files, or non-text files. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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