read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the file is UTF-8 and that only allowed folders are accessible, which is useful. However, it does not state what happens with binary files, large files, encoding failures, line-ending normalization, or whether the returned content is raw or processed. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is warranted.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The brevity is clean, but important details about parameters and behavioral boundaries are omitted, so it scores slightly below perfect.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. It mentions UTF-8 and allowed-folder constraints, but does not cover error cases, supported sizes, encoding handling, or return semantics. Sibling read-style tools suggest nuance (e.g., text-only vs binary) that this description does not address.

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 for the 'path' parameter. The description only implies that path is a file path within an allowed folder but does not explain path format (absolute vs relative), whether directories are rejected or accepted, or any validation rules. With a single undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 says 'Read a UTF-8 text file from an allowed folder.' It states the verb (read), resource (file), and a key constraint (UTF-8, allowed folder). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_text or list_directory, and the purpose is somewhat generic for a read tool that is one of many file operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that binary files must use other approaches, that search_text is preferred for searching content, or any exclusions. The 'allowed folder' phrase hints at scope but does not clarify selection among siblings.

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