fs__read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It claims to read 'complete contents', yet the input schema includes 'head' and 'tail' parameters that limit output to partial lines. This contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's actual behavior. No mention of encoding, file size limits, or error handling.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and deprecation status.

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 has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description omits crucial context: the ability to read partial lines via head/tail, the file encoding assumed, any size restrictions, or how it differs from read_text_file beyond deprecation. The agent lacks enough information to use it correctly or decide between siblings.

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 67% (path lacks a description; tail and head have descriptions but are not explained in the tool description). The description says 'complete contents', which contradicts the optional head/tail parameters that allow partial reads. The description adds no value beyond the schema and actually undermines parameter understanding.

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 complete contents of a file as text', and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool by marking it as DEPRECATED and pointing to 'read_text_file' as the successor.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to avoid this tool when possible: 'DEPRECATED: Use read_text_file instead.' This directly tells when not to use it and provides a named alternative.

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