Read Text File

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and no destructive hints, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds that it handles various text encodings, provides detailed error messages, and operates on all files as text regardless of extension. These are useful but not critical beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds parameter usage notes, then scope restrictions. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return format is documented), annotations provide safety info, and the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and allowed directory restrictions. It could briefly mention that reading multiple files requires a different tool, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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?

The schema covers path (required), head, and tail with descriptions for head and tail but not path. The description explains head and tail parameters in more detail (first/last N lines). Schema description coverage is 67%, so the description compensates for the missing path description. Overall adds moderate value beyond schema.

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 'Read the complete contents of a file from the file system as text', specifying a concrete verb (read) and resource (file contents). It differentiates from sibling tools like filesystem__read_file (similar) and filesystem__read_media_file by emphasizing it handles text encodings and works on any extension as text, not media.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the head and tail parameters to read partial content, and mentions it 'only works within allowed directories'. However, it does not differentiate from filesystem__read_file (identical purpose) or specify when to use read_multiple_files instead, so some sibling differentiation is missing.

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