Reads a plain-text file from the project root to retrieve previously written content, allowing you to review and build upon it during the academic paper workflow.
Read a plain, user-visible file previously written at the project root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints ('plain', 'user-visible', 'previously written', 'project root') and states the read operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, encoding, or what happens when the file does not exist.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; every word contributes to defining the operation and its scope.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the basic call shape is inferable. However, the description omits usage boundaries versus read_file and leaves parameter semantics mostly to the schema, making it adequate but not complete.
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 0%, and neither filename nor project_dir has field documentation. The description only clarifies that project_dir refers to the project root, leaving filename semantics entirely implicit.
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 ('plain, user-visible file... at the project root'), which distinguishes it from a general read_file and binary read_image. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. 'Previously written at the project root' implies a scope, but the description does not mention read_file, read_resource, or any exclusion for arbitrary paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.