Read Multiple Files

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, it discloses failure isolation (one failed read won't abort the batch), a concrete truncation threshold (50,000 characters) with a recovery notice, the return shape (content paired with its path), and a directory restriction. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Five compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then efficiency rationale, then return shape, failure behavior, truncation, and scope constraint. No redundancy or filler.

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, yet the description covers return format, per-file failure semantics, truncation behavior with recovery guidance, and path scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the paths parameter is already documented as an array of valid file paths. The description adds only the allowed-directory constraint, which the schema itself also states, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 (read) and resource (contents of multiple files), and its batch scope distinguishes it from the single-file siblings read_file/read_text_file. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ("when you need to analyze or compare multiple files") and positions it against the implicit alternative of reading files one by one. No hard when-not exclusions are given, so it falls just short of a 5.

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