read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'bounded text' suggests a limit on the amount read, and 'No OCR' clarifies that scanned/image-based content won't be processed. These details go beyond annotations and are not contradictory.

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 with minimal waste. The core action ('Read') and key constraints ('bounded text', 'No OCR') are front-loaded, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though slightly more detail could be added without clutter.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the fundamental purpose and a key limitation. However, 'bounded' is ambiguous (what is the limit?) and error behavior or return format is not mentioned. Given read-only annotations cover safety, the description is mostly adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 should clarify the meaning of 'path', but it only implies it points to a shared file of the listed types. It does not specify whether the path is relative, absolute, or how it should be formatted. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 resource ('shared text, PDF or DOCX file'), and adds scoping with 'bounded text' and an explicit exclusion ('No OCR'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools list_files and search_files, which serve listing and searching rather than content retrieval.

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 purpose implies it is for reading file content, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_files or search_files, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., for large files or scanned images). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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