vibekit_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. The verb 'read' implies a non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose return format, error conditions, or any path depth restrictions. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, clear sentence that states the exact purpose with no redundant words or repetition of schema details.

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 low in complexity with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the read operation, but it does not explicitly state what is returned (e.g., file content as a string). This is implied and acceptable given the simplicity.

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 100%: both 'path' and 'appId' have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a file in an app's workspace'. This distinguishes it from siblings like vibekit_list_files (which lists files) and vibekit_write_file (which writes/modifies files).

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 clearly implies use when you need to inspect file contents, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. With sibling names like list_files and write_file, the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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