Read file

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: output encoding is UTF-8, binary is refused unless base64 is passed, and oversized files fail rather than truncate. It does not cover permission/auth failures or missing-path 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, each carrying distinct information (encoding, binary handling, size failure mode) with no 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly states the return encoding and the two failure modes. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool, though error signaling for bad paths or permissions is unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter context by linking the encoding enum to content type ('binary files are refused unless encoding is base64'), clarifying the interaction beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Read a file from Nextcloud') with clear scope about what content is returned. It implicitly separates itself from write_file, but does not distinguish itself from stat, list_directory, or search, which an agent could confuse for content reading.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains the encoding condition for binary files but never says when to prefer this over stat (metadata) or search (finding files). No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given.

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