read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'read the contents' without detailing whether the entire file is read, what happens for large files, binary mode, error handling (e.g., file not found), or required permissions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (one sentence), but it under-specifies essential details. True conciseness would pack more meaning into fewer words without sacrificing clarity; here, brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description omits output format, error behavior, and parameter meanings. An agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool reliably, making it incomplete.

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 2 parameters (alias, path) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about what 'alias' or 'path' represent, which is critical for correct use. The agent cannot infer expected values or formats from the description.

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 verb 'read' and the object 'contents of a remote file', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'write_file' and 'tail_log_file'. However, it could be more specific about the type of remote file (e.g., text vs binary) and encoding.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tail_log_file' or 'list_directory'. There are no prerequisites (e.g., file existence) or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate use.

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