read_provider

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It describes reading a URI and returning the file body as text, which is adequate. However, it omits details about required permissions, error handling, or side effects, which are relevant for a tool that accesses files.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and uses a code snippet for precision. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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?

The tool appears to require a connected drozer session (sibling tools include drozer_connect), but the description does not mention this prerequisite. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description ideally would clarify the return type beyond 'text'. Error scenarios or access requirements are absent.

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?

The only parameter 'uri' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds minimal context by mentioning it is a 'file-backed content provider URI' and gives a code example, but does not specify the expected format, allowed schemes, or constraints. More guidance is needed for correct invocation.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'file-backed content provider URI' (with a code example). It distinguishes from siblings like query_provider and scan_provider_traversal by specifying the use case of testing for unauthorized file disclosure or path traversal.

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 a clear usage context ('Used to test for unauthorized file disclosure or path-traversal in FileProvider implementations'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a security testing tool.

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