read_text_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries some burden. It discloses 'Read-only', which is a safety trait, and 'line-window controls' adds behavioral context about reading subsets of lines. However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if the file is missing, leaving some gaps for a mutation-free read operation.

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 core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is highly concise 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 presence of an output schema, return values are already documented. However, the description does not cover encoding options, default line limits, or edge cases. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves room for more detail on parameter behavior and error 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'line-window controls', which conceptually explains start_line and max_lines, but it does not elaborate on encoding or the exact semantics of each parameter. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial value.

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 text file, with a specific resource (text file) and distinguishes it from siblings like read_binary_file_base64 by mentioning 'line-window controls'. It is specific and action-oriented.

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 text files with line-window controls, which hints at when to use it (e.g., for large files or targeted sections). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like read_binary_file_base64 or file_info, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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