repo_read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does contribute one real trait: traversal outside the workspace is blocked, which tells the agent the security posture. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as missing-file handling, binary/encoding limits, or size constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 with zero waste, and the core purpose plus the safety constraint are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main safety constraint adequately. Error and edge-case behavior is the only notable omission.

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 both filePath and workspaceRoot are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('reads a file') and scopes it to the project workspace, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling write/delete tools. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like project_inspect or terminal_exec, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. A read is fairly self-evident, but the definition leaves all routing to inference.

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