read_text_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds file category context but does not disclose return format, encoding, or error behavior; with the read-only annotation carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, with the core action front-loaded and useful examples included. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant, but each segment earns its place by serving different-language agents.

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 simple read tool, the combination of schema (path and maxChars), annotations (readOnly/destructive), and description (file types and scenarios) is nearly complete. No output schema exists, but 'read a text file' implies content return, and missing encoding/error details are minor for this use case.

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%, with path and maxChars both described in the schema including the default value. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a text file (script, config, log).' It further narrows scope with concrete use cases ('exported .ini files or MAXScript snippets') and is naturally distinguished from the sibling write_text_file by the explicit 'read' action.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Handy for inspecting exported .ini files or MAXScript snippets.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended scenarios are concrete enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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