read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides a scope constraint (inside the workspace) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens with large files, whether max_chars truncates output, or how errors are handled. The absence of these details for a safe read operation keeps it at a neutral 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope without repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return value and parameter effects. It does not, leaving gaps about what the tool returns (e.g., file contents as a string) and how max_chars behaves. For a tool with only two parameters, more detail would make it complete.

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 input schema has two parameters (path, max_chars) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of these parameters. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of context, leaving the agent to infer that 'path' is the file path and 'max_chars' limits output length without clarification.

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 a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('a file') with an explicit scope ('inside the VS Code workspace'). It differentiates from sibling tools like write_file and list_files by its clear focus on reading content.

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 usage is implied: use when you need to read a file's content. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like list_files for discovering files. The description does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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