read_file

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

No annotations provided. The description states it reads files but does not disclose read-only behavior, required permissions, potential side effects, or limitations (e.g., file size, encoding).

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 extremely short (four characters), but it is front-loaded and efficient. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, failing to earn its place with substantive information.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical details like return format (e.g., string, binary), error behavior, and file encoding. It is inadequately complete for an agent to reliably use.

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% (one parameter 'path' with description '文件路径'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 '读取文件内容' translates to 'read file content', which clearly states the verb and resource, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'read_file_advanced' or 'batch_read_files'. It does not specify scope (e.g., text or binary, size limits).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, file type restrictions, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., read_file_advanced) would be preferred.

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