fs_read_file

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 states the tool reads a file and returns text, and lists the return fields. It does not mention error behavior, permissions, or encoding specifics, but is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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 only two sentences: one for the purpose and one for the return structure. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant information.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the return fields, which is helpful. It could mention error handling for missing files, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add any meaning about path format, required permissions, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'file from disk', and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fs_edit_file and fs_write_file by being read-only, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its simple read operation is implied by the name and contrast with edit/write siblings, offering some contextual hint.

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