Read a file from the executor workspace (UNC readfile)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety) by disclosing the type-guard and pcall-wrapping, the exact error shapes for missing readfile and read failures, and the return shape { path, content } or { error }. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to handle failure.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then failure behavior and signature follow. It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place, though the trailing metadata (idempotency=read-only, Safety: read-only) partly duplicates the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly ({ path, content } or { error }), and it covers failure modes, prerequisites, and the capability required. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description merely restates the signature. It adds no syntax, format, or default nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 entire contents of a file) plus the exact scope (executor's workspace folder, returned as a string). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the Roblox game/DataModel reads, which separates it from in-game siblings like get-script-content and read-path-value.

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?

Clear context for when to use it — executor-side file I/O with paths relative to the executor workspace, plus the required capability readfile and active-client/resolved-target prerequisites. It does not name a specific alternative sibling (e.g. load-file or file-exists) to route away from, so it stops short of a full 5.

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