read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of genuinely new behavior: access is limited to an allowlist ('allowed' file), and secret values are redacted as '***' in the output. It does not say what happens when the file is longer than the requested chunk beyond the offset hint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The parenthetical about offset units is efficient, though 'allowed' is left unexplained and costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, for a chunked reader the description omits whether truncation or end-of-file is signalled and what max_lines defaults to, which are the details an agent needs to page through a file correctly.

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 must carry the parameter meaning. It explains offset as being measured in lines, but says nothing about the units or defaults of max_lines (300) or what qualifies as a valid path, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource (read a text file) plus the operating mode (in chunks, offset in lines) and a scope constraint (allowed files). It is clear enough to call, though it does not name how it differs from siblings like search_files or tail_log.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as tail_log, search_files, and list_dir in the toolbox, the description never says which one to pick for reading versus tailing versus searching a file.

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