read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it reads full text content and that the path is relative to the workspace root, but doesn't mention error behavior, encoding, or binary file handling. This is minimal but adequate for a simple read 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, containing a one-sentence purpose and an args block. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It defines the scope and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't cover error cases or what types of files are supported, which would be helpful.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It provides a clear explanation that 'path' is relative to the workspace root, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It could also specify that it must refer to a file, not a directory, but the current explanation is sufficient.

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 tool reads the full text content of a file in the workspace. The verb 'Read' plus resource 'file' and scope 'full text content' distinguishes it from siblings like list_directory or search_files.

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 implies usage when you need a file's full contents, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like search_files or find_text. It lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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