ファイルの読み込み

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope constraints beyond the schema: text files only, and only within permitted folders. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, resource type, and scope restriction with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 low-complexity read tool, the description, annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema collectively leave no critical gap. The important contextual restriction—allowed-folder scope—is explicitly stated.

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 both 'path' and 'encoding' are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but at full schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (reads and returns) and a precise resource (contents of text files in allowed folders). This clearly distinguishes read_file from siblings like list_directory, list_allowed_directories, and write_file.

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: use this tool when you need the content of a text file within the allowed folder. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to infer the correct choice from sibling names.

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