worker_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the security boundary (workdir, NOT BRIDGE_WORK_ROOT) and path semantics, but says nothing about return format, error behavior on out-of-scope paths, or how limit/offset pagination behaves.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the scope constraint. No filler; every clause adds operational information.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers authorization scope well but leaves limit/offset pagination and the return shape entirely unexplained. It is adequate but not complete for correct invocation.

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 50%: workdir and file_path are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces file_path semantics. However limit and offset are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so half the parameters lack meaning.

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 (a file), plus the authorization scope (bounded by workdir, not BRIDGE_WORK_ROOT). The line 'For spawned worker sessions only' distinguishes it from the plain read_file sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to spawned worker sessions and explains the path-resolution rule (relative to workdir or absolute within the workdir parent tree). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not-to-use beyond the session restriction.

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