read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that paths live on a remote ssh target and that the read executes on the remote host, which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded before the remote-host caveat. The 'REMOTE:' prefix is slightly awkward but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of stating the return value, which it does ('line-numbered content'). Combined with the remote-execution note and fully documented parameters, an agent has what it needs, though pagination interaction with limit/offset is left entirely to the schema.

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 file_path, target, limit and offset are all documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces that file_path is remote and relative paths resolve against the target root, but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a UTF-8 text file') plus the return shape ('line-numbered content'), which is enough to separate it from write/edit. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from grep or glob for content search, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 explains the operating context (reads run on the selected remote target) but gives no guidance on when to pick read over grep, glob, or bash for inspecting file contents. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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