files_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: only UTF-8 text is supported, access is limited to the sandbox, and max_bytes caps the output. It omits what happens on truncation, missing files, or non-UTF-8 content, and does not confirm the operation is side-effect free.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and the output-limiting parameter explained inline. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical could be integrated more smoothly.

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, has only two parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still, for a filesystem read with zero annotation coverage, one more sentence on truncation and error behavior would close the remaining gaps.

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. It adds meaning for max_bytes (it caps output size), but says nothing about path — whether it is relative to the sandbox root, absolute, or how traversal is handled — leaving the required parameter's semantics thin.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a UTF-8 text file in the sandbox), which clearly separates it from files_write_file and files_delete_file in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling it contrasts with, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as files_search_files or files_list_files for locating a file first. The purpose implies usage, but the description never says it.

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