Read Text File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral details: handles various text encodings, provides detailed error messages, and operates as text regardless of extension. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value: encoding handling, usage context, parameter details, and restrictions. No superfluous content.

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 read tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter guidance, restrictions, and behavioral details. Output schema exists, so return format is not needed. It is thorough for the tool's complexity.

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 description explains the head and tail parameters (first N lines, last N lines), but these descriptions largely repeat the schema. The path parameter is not elaborated beyond the name. Given 67% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('file as text'), and distinguishes from siblings like read_multiple_files by stating 'single file'. It also mentions handling encodings and error messages, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('examine contents of a single file') and provides guidance on head/tail parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other tools like read_file.

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