fs__read_text_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses text encoding handling, detailed error messages, and that it operates on text regardless of extension. Does not mention file size limits or locking, but sufficient for a read-only 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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Clear and organized, though could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences. No unnecessary 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?

No output schema, so description does not specify return format. However, it mentions 'complete contents' and 'detailed error messages', which is typical for read tools. Additional info on success/error structure would improve completeness, but acceptable.

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% (head and tail have descriptions, path does not). Description adds meaning: head/tail read first/last N lines. Path description missing but inferred from context. Schema already provides basic info, and description compensates partially.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read the complete contents of a file from the file system as text', specifying verb, resource, and modality. It distinguishes from siblings like fs__read_file (binary) and fs__read_multiple_files.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to examine the contents of a single file' and explains head/tail usage. Mentions allowed directories constraint. Could briefly differentiate from fs__read_file or fs__read_media_file, but still clear.

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