Read Text File

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

The description adds useful behavioral info beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it mentions handling text encodings, providing detailed error messages, operating as text regardless of extension, and restricting to allowed directories. This gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concisely written in six sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds detail and usage guidance without unnecessary words. Every sentence is justified.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: reading single file, encoding handling, error messages, head/tail options, text operation, and directory constraints. It could mention large file handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents head and tail parameters. The description rephrases their usage, adding minor clarification (e.g., 'only the first N lines'). For the 'path' parameter, the description adds no additional meaning beyond being a file path, so the added value is marginal.

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 explicitly states 'Read the complete contents...as text', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It also mentions 'single file', distinguishing it from siblings like read_multiple_files. However, the presence of a sibling named 'read_file' without clear differentiation slightly reduces clarity.

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 advises to 'Use this tool when you need to examine the contents of a single file' and explains the head/tail parameters for partial reading. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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