批量读取文件

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read operation. It adds useful context about workspace text files and the 20-file limit, but does not disclose failure behavior for missing files, non-text files, or oversized files. The added behavioral context is moderate but not rich.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key constraint, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 batch-read tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not explain what happens when a file is too large, when a path is invalid, or what the output shape is. These gaps are meaningful because no output schema exists to fill them.

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 compensate for parameter documentation. It clarifies that multiple paths are supported and that the limit is 20, but it says nothing about the meaning or semantics of max_bytes_per_file. The second parameter is effectively undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: reading multiple workspace text files in one operation, with an explicit cap of 20 files. This distinguishes it from the single-file sibling read_file and makes the batch nature immediately obvious.

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 it should be used when reading multiple text files at once, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like read_file, nor does it mention exclusions like binary files or non-workspace paths. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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