Read File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and that the return value is a string, which implies non-mutation and gives the result type. However, it does not address error cases, file encoding, path resolution, or binary file behavior.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It leads with the action and specifies the return type immediately.

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 1-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and output type, but it omits file-location semantics and error behavior. The lack of an output schema makes some return-detail gaps acceptable, yet the overall guidance is only minimally viable.

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, but it only says 'a file' without explaining what the 'file' parameter should accept (path, filename, or handle), its format, or relative vs absolute paths. The parameter name alone is insufficient.

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 identifies the action ('read'), the resource ('a file'), and the output ('return it as a string'). It distinguishes the tool from write_file but not from siblings like bash or python_file that could also read 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus bash, python_code, glob, or grep, and no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. The agent receives no help selecting among file-reading siblings.

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