read_files

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns per-file records, aggregate token estimate, isolated errors (one failure doesn't abort batch), read-only nature, no side effects, auth, or rate limits. This is comprehensive.

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 two sentences plus a usage note, each sentence carrying essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines return values (records, total_est_tokens, errors[]). It covers batch behavior, limits, and safety. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is 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 schema already describes 'ids' with max 200, but the description adds context about batching and paging for larger sets. It reinforces the parameter's purpose beyond the schema definition.

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 explicitly states the action (batch read), resource (files by ID), and limit (up to 200 files). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_file' by highlighting the batch approach and token cost advantage.

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 description directly advises using this tool instead of looping 'read_file' to reduce round-trips, and instructs to paginate for more than 200 IDs. It clearly states when to use and when not to use.

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