view_file_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is safe, read-only, protected against path traversal, limited to specific directories, capped at 200,000 bytes, and returns content, size, and modification timestamp.

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 well-structured with purpose, permitted directories, safety note, Args, and Returns. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, parameter semantics, and return shape, making it sufficient for a simple read tool. The main omission is explicit behavior for unauthorized or missing paths, but this is minor given the clear permitted-directory boundaries and output schema.

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 explain both parameters. It clearly defines file_path as a canonical or relative path and max_bytes with default 50,000 and cap 200,000, adding meaning beyond the raw input 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 clearly states the tool reads the content of authorized configuration or web files and lists permitted directories. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_directory, read_service_logs, and write_file_content.

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?

It gives clear context by enumerating the permitted directories and the file types the tool targets. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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