read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is read-only, supports specific path types, and errors on non-text files. This is adequate for a simple read operation, though it could mention output format or encoding.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information without waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, file type restrictions, and path scope. It could benefit from mentioning encoding or file size limits, but overall it is complete for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It confirms that path supports personal/team spaces, which is already in the schema description. No additional semantic details about path format or constraints are added.

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 action (read), the resource (text files on zspace NAS), and the scope (personal and team space paths). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying text files only, which differentiates it from tools like list_files or search_files.

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 provides clear constraints: only text files are supported, and non-text files return an error. This gives the agent guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like search_files for locating files.

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