fs__read_multiple_files

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: failure tolerance ('Failed reads... won't stop the entire operation'), return structure ('Each file's content is returned with its path'), and permission constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'). It lacks details on concurrency or max file limits but is otherwise transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, efficiency, return format, failure handling, and constraint. No repetition or unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the output format and error handling. It provides usage context and constraints. However, it misses potential limits (max files, max size) and whether reading is sequential or parallel, which would improve completeness.

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% as the input schema fully describes the 'paths' parameter. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond reiterating 'allowed directories' and failure handling. Per guidelines, baseline is 3.

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 it reads multiple files simultaneously, highlights efficiency for analyzing/comparing multiple files, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fs__read_file which read single files. The verb 'read' and resource 'multiple files' are specific.

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 explains it is more efficient than reading files one by one and that failed reads won't stop the operation, guiding agents to use it when handling multiple files or tolerance for failures. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single file use fs__read_file).

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