read_project_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safely with project-root sandboxing' which hints at security boundaries, but doesn't describe what 'safely' entails, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, file size constraints beyond maxChars, or what happens with invalid paths. The description provides minimal behavioral context for a file reading operation.

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 extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Read a workspace file') and adding one qualifying phrase ('safely with project-root sandboxing'). Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), no annotations, and only 2 parameters, the description provides basic context about the operation's safety boundaries. However, for a file reading tool with completely undocumented parameters, it should ideally explain path semantics and character limit implications to be fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'path' or 'maxChars' mean. It doesn't explain path format (relative/absolute), what 'maxChars' controls, or default behaviors. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('workspace file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'write_project_file_preview' by focusing on reading rather than writing, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_project_files' which might also involve reading operations.

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 mentions 'safely with project-root sandboxing' which provides some context about security boundaries, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_project_files' or 'analyze_current_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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