Read Workspace file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantive detail beyond them: the 262144-byte cap and refusal behaviour, HTTP 415 for binary files, paginated directory entries, and the explicit 'No run starts and nothing changes' assurance.

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?

Three tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then limits, then the non-mutating guarantee. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated; the description covers what an agent still needs — size limits, binary rejection, pagination via cursor, and side-effect freedom — for a read tool with a rich but simple 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to revision_id by enumerating the accepted revision sources (current_revision, saved_revision_id, base/incoming/result_revision) that the schema's one-line field description does not.

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 a file or list a directory') and enumerates exactly which revisions can be targeted, so the agent can distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like upload_workspace_file or get_workspace_changeset without opening a schema.

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 clear context for use — reading from current_revision, a worker's saved_revision_id, or a changeset's base/incoming/result revision — but never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives or states preconditions (e.g., when to prefer a changeset tool over reading a revision).

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