file_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and states a non-destructive read operation with a specific scope (local, plain text, absolute path). It does not cover error handling, encoding, or size limits, but for a simple read operation, this is a minimal but adequate disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target resource. It is efficient, though slightly truncated, but the visible content has no filler.

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?

The description conveys the essential purpose and identifies the target file type and location, which is sufficient for selecting the tool among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state the return value, and the absolute path requirement is not reflected in the schema, leaving invocation details incomplete.

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 no parameters, yet the description specifies an absolute path requirement, which is essential information for invocation. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, though it highlights a mismatch between the description and schema that the agent must resolve.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reads'), resource ('plain text file'), and scope ('local filesystem by its absolute path'), and explicitly labels it as the 'primary, default tool' for reading, which differentiates it from siblings like pdf_read or word_read. Even though truncated, the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'primary, default tool for read...' gives clear guidance that this tool should be the first choice for file reading. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'plain text' and 'local filesystem' qualifiers implicitly exclude non-text and remote file tools.

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