read_app_file

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavior burden. It discloses the return form ('as text') and the read-then-write rationale, but says nothing about binary/non-text files, error behavior, or permissions — the 404 semantics live only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the workflow rationale; nothing wasted. The rationale clause is slightly wordy but earns its place by explaining why to call this first.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description explains what comes back ('as text'), which is the key missing piece. It leaves open handling of non-text files and failure modes, though the schema covers the 404 cases.

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 100% and both parameters are thoroughly documented there (workspace name, 404 behavior, path format, 256 KiB cap). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one file back from an app's workspace as text'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the listing sibling. It implies the contrast with write_app_files but never names list_app_files, which is the closest read sibling.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: read before patching a file you did not write in this conversation so write_app_files replaces content you have seen. No explicit when-not or alternative (e.g., 'use list_app_files to discover paths'), so it stops short of a 5.

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