read_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads files but doesn't mention potential issues like file permissions, errors for non-existent files, encoding handling, or output format. For a file system tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence to add context efficiently. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage without waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('contents of a file from the local file system'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'list_directory' beyond the general 'view existing code files' context, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 some implied usage guidance with 'Use this to view existing code files,' which suggests a context for reading code files. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'search_files' for finding files or 'edit_file' for modifying them), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it only moderately helpful.

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