Read a code file

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: size cap, binary file handling, sandboxing to codeLocation. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description enriches behavioral understanding.

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?

Two succinct sentences with the core purpose upfront. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool is well-covered for a simple read operation: mentions sandboxing, size cap, binary handling. Missing explicit return format details (though 'content + line count' is stated). Adequate given lack of output schema.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description implies that 'path' is relative to codeLocation and mentions a size cap (related to maxBytes). It does not explain 'project' or 'maxBytes' explicitly. Some value added but incomplete.

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 tool reads a file under codeLocation as UTF-8 text, with size capping and binary flagging. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reading a single file, not listing or modifying.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_code_files). However, the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer usage from the name and description.

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