hpc_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a 1 MB size threshold, head/tail preview fallback for oversized files, and outright refusal of binary files. That is meaningful operational context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about performance or encoding.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the size limit front-loaded before the edge-case behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is responsible for setting expectations, and it does so via the head/tail preview and binary-refusal notes. It stops short of describing the returned structure (line numbering, truncation markers), which would be the final missing piece.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path on the cluster'), the schema already carries the semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no path syntax, character-encoding, or relative-vs-absolute clarification beyond the 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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (text file) plus scope (into context, ≤1 MB), so the purpose is unambiguous. It only partially differentiates from siblings hpc_head_file/hpc_tail_file and hpc_read_doc, mentioning head/tail preview as a fallback rather than naming the alternatives an agent should prefer.

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?

Usage is implied — fetch a file's contents — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against hpc_head_file, hpc_tail_file, hpc_read_doc, or hpc_search_in_file. The size/binary caveats hint at boundaries without routing the agent to the right sibling.

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