read_text_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses that the file must be UTF-8 and a byte limit exists, but does not specify behavior on file not found, encoding errors, or what happens when maxBytes is exceeded (truncation vs error).

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 sentence, 60 characters, and is concise. It could be slightly expanded to include key missing details without becoming verbose. Efficiency is good but at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and importance as a core file read operation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, error handling, or path constraints, leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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. It mentions a 'maximum byte limit' but does not explicitly link it to the maxBytes parameter, and does not describe the 'path' parameter at all. This is insufficient to meet the baseline of 4 for zero parameters.

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 identifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'text file', and distinguishes from sibling 'write_text_file' and 'list_dir'. However, it does not explicitly state what is returned (file contents), which could be inferred but is not stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for reading existing files, not for creating or modifying them.

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