file_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content returns via JSON, avoids shell/escaping issues, and caps output at 2000 lines. It does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or what happens when the cap is exceeded (truncation vs. error).

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral notes on JSON safety, line ranges, and output cap. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 and parameters are fully documented, so the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify the JSON structure of the response or how oversize files are handled beyond the 2000-line cap, leaving some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor value by suggesting line ranges for large files, but it doesn't enrich the semantics of path or line numbers 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file'), including the ability to read an entire file or a line range. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the distinction from shell-based reads is implicit through 'no shell, no escaping issues.' This is clear but not as strong as naming alternatives.

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 gives context for using start_line/end_line on large files and implies a safer alternative to shell-based reads, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus file_search or shell_exec. Usage guidance is present but mostly implied rather than explicit.

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