read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it reads content from a project file but doesn't disclose whether the file must exist, what happens on missing files, encoding behavior, or whether it's a read-only operation (which it clearly is by implication). The description adds minimal behavior beyond the obvious.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. It communicates the core purpose in the fewest words needed. However, it may be under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 1 parameter, the tool lacks annotations entirely and has zero schema description coverage. For a file-reading tool serving as a sibling to write_file and change-proposal tools, the description should note relative-path grounding and typical usage flow, but it doesn't. The simplicity keeps it from being a 1.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter rel_path is vaguely implied by 'arquivo do projeto' but its semantics (relative to what root?) and format requirements are not explained. There is no output schema detail needed for params, but the one parameter's meaning is left to inference.

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 'Lê o conteúdo de um arquivo do projeto' (reads a file's content from the project) clearly states the verb (read) and resource (file content). It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_file, list_dir, and the change-proposal tools. Slightly below 5 because it's minimal and doesn't add scoping details.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings list_dir and write_file, an agent might benefit from knowing when to use read_file (e.g., before proposing changes) versus these alternatives, but the description offers no such context or exclusions.

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