fs_read_full_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read action and does not explain how the charset parameter affects decoding, how errors like file-not-found are handled, or that the entire file is loaded into memory. The implied 'full' behavior is present but not elaborated.

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, succinct sentence that conveys the core action without waste. It is appropriately short for a simple read operation, though it could benefit from a bit more specificity to balance conciseness with usefulness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not mention text encoding handling, file size considerations, or when to choose this tool over fs_read_text_range. The sibling tools highlight missing comparative guidance, making the description functionally bare.

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%, and the description does not mention file_path or charset at all. While the charset parameter has a generic schema description, the tool description itself adds no semantic meaning to either parameter, leaving the agent to infer usage from names 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 action (Read) and the resource (full text file), indicating the tool reads the entire contents of a text file. The word 'full' distinguishes it from the sibling fs_read_text_range, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 like fs_read_text_range or fs_read_binary_chunk. There is no mention of scenarios such as needing the entire file versus a range, or handling large files.

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