read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior — document reconstruction from chunks rather than concatenation, deduplication of repeated context, full response size, and large-response caveat. This is substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, then explains the non-obvious reconstruction behavior in a compact paragraph, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, exact parameter semantics, behavioral quirks, response size, and provides a sibling alternative. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, yet it still notes the response holds full document text.

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 0%, but the description adds full meaning: filePath is 'absolute path inside a document root' and source is 'the id of a data/url item.' It also enforces mutual exclusivity, which the schema itself doesn't express.

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 opens with 'Read a source's entire indexed content as Markdown' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling read_chunk_neighbors by noting that tool is preferred for chunk-level context.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'provide exactly one of filePath or source' and 'prefer read_chunk_neighbors when only the context around one chunk is needed.' This tells the agent when to use this tool vs an alternative.

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