read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation and adds useful behavior details (full-file vs. section-based reads). It does not mention error handling or exact return format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that gap.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and object and provides all essential details without redundancy. Every clause adds meaning, making it an ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, where paths come from, and the optional section behavior, so no critical selection information is missing.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema by indicating the path comes from list_files/search_markdown and that section is optional. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('a markdown file by its relative path'), and it explicitly references sibling tools (list_files / search_markdown) to clarify how paths are obtained. This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately clear and well-differentiated from siblings.

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 gives clear context on how to obtain paths ('as shown by list_files / search_markdown') and mentions the optional section-scoping behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is implied strongly enough for an agent to make the right choice.

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