read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses path confinement and out-of-root rejection, which is important for safe invocation. However, it does not explain how limit/offset affect the read, what happens for binary or missing files, or any error behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and output characteristic come first, followed by the important path-isolation constraint. Every sentence carries essential information without 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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It explains path restrictions but does not define line-number pagination semantics, offset behavior, or workdir usage, so an agent may still be unsure how to call the tool for non-trivial reads.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that file_path is confined to BRIDGE_WORK_ROOT/caller workdir. The semantics of limit, offset, and workdir are not explained anywhere, and the description does not mention them, leaving the agent without enough information to set them correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Read file content with line numbers') and identifies the resource (file), so an agent can tell this is a file-reading tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_dir or dsh_read, but the 'line numbers' detail helps differentiate it from a plain directory listing or data-store read.

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 phrase 'For letting the other agent inspect a file' implies a use case, giving some context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the exact selection criteria.

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