Read Text File

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and closed-world operation, and the description adds real context on top: encoding handling, detailed error behavior on failure, and the 'only works within allowed directories' scope constraint. It stops short of describing output/pagination format, but the additions are genuine.

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 and well organized, but 'Operates on the file as text regardless of extension' largely repeats the opening 'as text' clause and is minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is unnecessary; the description covers read-only nature, encoding, error behavior, partial reads, and directory scoping. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, with only the sibling differentiation left thin.

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 are already documented in the schema, and the description usefully restates that they read first/last N lines, while 'path' remains undescribed in both places (though self-explanatory). The description adds little beyond the schema for the parameters it does cover.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the complete contents of a file... as text') and clarifies text handling 'regardless of extension', which helps separate it from a media-reading sibling. It never explicitly names the alternative tools (read_file, read_media_file, read_multiple_files), so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Use this tool when you need to examine the contents of a single file' gives an implied when-to-use and the head/tail sentence sketches partial-read scenarios. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and no explicit exclusions (e.g., binary/media, multiple files at once) are stated.

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