Read files within the project root to supply context, with a 5MB per-file limit ensuring safe data handling.
Reads files relative to the project root with a 5MB size cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Project-relative file path to read. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Base64-encoded file contents. | |
| path | Yes | ||
| size | Yes | ||
| encoding | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the 5MB cap and project-root scoping, but does not describe behavior for missing files, over-cap files, binary content, or encoding. The read-only nature is implied by 'Reads'.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the purpose, scope, and constraint with no filler. 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?
This is a low-complexity single-parameter read tool and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description plus schema cover the essential invocation details. Minor gaps around handling large or missing files are not critical for basic 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%, so the schema already documents 'path' as a project-relative file path. The description reinforces the project-root relativity, which is helpful, but it does not add further parameter semantics such as path format or unsupported patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Reads'), a clear resource ('files relative to the project root'), and a distinguishing constraint (5MB size cap). It clearly separates this tool from siblings like code-search, which searches code, and project-topology, which describes structure.
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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need file content from the project root. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some routing decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.