Read File Tool

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: images may be scaled down, text/files return inline, PDFs/videos/Office/large files return a 15-minute download link, and the agent should download via curl to a temporary folder outside the project. It also includes a prompt-injection warning about treating content as information, not instructions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers in useful return-format and safety details. It is dense but efficient; every sentence contributes, though the long parenthetical could be split for readability.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully covers return behavior (inline content versus expiring download link) and operational guidance for downloads. It gives an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly and handle the result safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description only reinforces the id source; it adds no new semantic detail about the 'session' parameter or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a file') and immediately explains the two scopes (task or project), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_file and read_document. It also clarifies what kinds of content it returns, making the tool's purpose concrete and scoped.

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?

It explains where the file id comes from (start_task / list_tasks / read_document), which is essential usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use read_file versus read_document or update_file, so there is a minor gap in routing guidance.

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