Read local file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious behavior beyond the schema: it is limited to text files and defines how paths resolve (absolute, ~/, or relative to the configured base directory). It stops short of covering failure behavior (missing file, encoding, non-text input), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying a distinct load: what it reads, when to prefer it over bash, and path syntax. No repetition of the schema or annotations and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format and pagination semantics need not be restated. Purpose, routing, and path semantics are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 limit/offset defaults and ranges are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond that by specifying the accepted path forms (absolute, ~/, base-relative), which the schema's terse 'Path to the local text file' does not.

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 and resource ('Read a local text file') and immediately scopes it against the closest sibling by naming what bash is for. An agent can separate read from bash without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use condition ('use this for file contents') and enumerates the alternatives handled by bash (directory listings, file discovery, grep/ripgrep, git). This is a real routing rule, not an implied one.

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