ilias_read_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive annotations, the description exposes genuinely non-obvious stateful behavior: unread-page incremental reads, an 'already_read' status for unchanged fully-read files, and the fact that query snippets do not count as read. These are exactly the surprises an agent would otherwise stumble into.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then one terse clause per behavior mode. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 five-parameter, stateful read tool with an output schema already covering return shape, this is nearly complete. The gaps are the undocumented `max_chars` truncation behavior and the absence of explicit sibling routing for download versus text extraction.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so for three of five parameters with real semantics ('2-4,7' page syntax, pipe-delimited keyword query, force re-read) plus the dual meaning of `target`. `max_chars` is never mentioned, leaving one parameter with no meaning beyond its name.

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 names a specific resource (course file text) and enumerates the supported formats (PDF, PPTX, DOCX, text, ZIP), plus the identifier mode (ref_id or download URL). That distinguishes it in substance from ilias_download_file, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from 'Text of'.

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 gives clear, actionable guidance for each mode: default returns only unread pages, `pages` re-opens specific pages, `query` returns snippets, `force` re-reads everything. What it lacks is routing guidance against alternatives such as ilias_download_file or ilias_page_text, so an agent must decide on its own which tool to reach for.

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