Read Multiple Files

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

Adds behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: partial-failure tolerance ("failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation") and the output convention that each file's content is paired with its path. It does not mention size limits or truncation behavior, but with annotations and an output schema covering the rest, this is solid added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, then output shape, then failure semantics, then the directory constraint — four tight sentences with no filler. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary given the annotations, but every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, efficiency rationale, partial-failure behavior, and the allowed-directory restriction. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that paths is an array of valid file paths within allowed directories. The description adds no format, syntax, or ordering detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (read) applied to a specific resource (multiple files) and explicitly scopes it as simultaneous reads, distinguishing it from the sibling read_file/read_text_file/read_media_file tools. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

"More efficient than reading files one by one when you need to analyze or compare multiple files" gives a clear use condition and implicitly points to the single-file siblings as the alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule (e.g., use read_file for a single path), so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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