read_file

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds the remote-vs-local distinction, but does not disclose any other behaviors like authentication, error patterns, or return encoding. Since the annotation covers safety, a 3 is appropriate for the limited extra context provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core function and quickly points to the schema for parameter specifics, which is ideal for this simple tool.

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?

The description is sufficient for a straightforward read operation. The schema covers parameter details, the annotation covers read-only safety, and the description plus schema collectively tell the agent what it does and when to use it. No output schema is needed since the return value is obviously the file contents.

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 both file_path and project_id are already fully described in the schema (with particularly thorough detail on project_id). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 resource 'file from a Typleaf project', which distinguishes it from sibling write tools like edit_file, rewrite_file, and delete_file. The scope is specific (Typleaf project, not local files) and instantly actionable.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user asks for Typleaf project work, never for general local I/O, and prefer local read/grep tools if the project is checked out locally. It also instructs to call list_projects first when unsure, which covers the alternative flow.

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