Read file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it reads full contents of a text file, but omits important behavioral details such as what happens if the file is binary, size limits, encoding assumptions, or whether the operation is safe/non-mutating. The word 'reads' implies non-destructiveness, but that is not explicit.

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, focused, front-loaded sentence. There is no wasted wording, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about return format, error handling, or limitations (e.g., file size, binary support). While the tool is inherently simple, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'full contents' and 'allowed file store' which aligns with the 'path' parameter, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Reads'), the resource ('a text file'), and the scope ('full contents' and 'inside the allowed file store'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_file_info (which likely returns metadata) and search_files (which searches), making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 implies use when you need the full content of a text file, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_file_info or search_files. Usage context is somewhat inferable from the wording, but no direct guidance is provided.

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