ketan_read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect ('Also records its existence as a belief'), which is valuable for an AI agent. The read operation itself is clearly implied, and no other hidden behaviors are apparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, with no redundant 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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the main behavior, the side effect of belief recording, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema handles return value details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 only defines 'filepath' without any description. The tool description compensates by specifying that the path is relative to the workspace root and provides a concrete example ('src/main.py'), which is critical for correct invocation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('a file from the workspace'). It also uniquely mentions the side effect of recording existence as a belief, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ketan_list_files and ketan_write_file_safe.

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 usage for reading files but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as ketan_list_files. However, the clear purpose and sibling context make the intended use obvious.

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