read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the 4 MiB size cap, auto UTF-16 detection, hex output mode, and ADS support via stream. It does not explain how offset/length interact with the cap, permissions, or the return payload shape.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary action and the key constraints front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the read semantics but omits the identity parameters (image, ref, part) that every call requires and the pagination parameters (offset, length). Adequate but with real gaps.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies stream (selects an alternate data stream) and as_text (text vs hex), but leaves image, ref, part, offset, and length unexplained, so half the surface is undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a file), plus scope (up to 4 MiB) and format options (text/hex, ADS via stream). This implicitly distinguishes it from block_read/disk_read raw-device readers, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like extract, strings, block_read, or disk_read. The 4 MiB cap hints that larger content should go elsewhere, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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