读取文件

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a useful workspace scope plus the observable behavior of returning line numbers. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing paths, binary files, encoding, or the effect of max_bytes, so behavioral detail remains limited.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core read action and resource, followed by the key optional behaviors. No filler or redundant restatement of the annotated readOnlyHint.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and only readOnlyHint annotation, the description is too thin. It fails to explain max_bytes, does not address error or edge-case behavior, and does not clarify how it differs from the nearby read_many_files tool, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining line-range control ('可指定行范围') and the line_numbers option ('返回行号'), and path is implied by '读取...文件'. However, max_bytes is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful parameter unexplained.

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 ('读取'/read) and resource ('工作区内文本文件'/text files in the workspace), and notes the ability to specify a line range and return line numbers. It clearly separates reading from sibling write/edit/delete tools, but does not distinguish itself from the close sibling read_many_files.

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 implies usage for reading workspace text files but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over read_many_files, search_text, list_directory, or file_metadata. There are no when-to-use/ when-not-to-use criteria or alternative recommendations.

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