read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the return shape includes a decoded 'text' field (None for binary), preserved base64 content and encoding, and the sha field's role in updates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then efficient explanation of output fields and sha relevance. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers the main aspects: reading content, binary handling, output fields, and the sha relationship. However, it lacks mention of error conditions (e.g., file not found, permissions) or size limits, which would be helpful given an output schema exists but is not shown. Still generally complete for a read operation.

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 schema itself documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the ref parameter's default behavior (which is already in the schema's description). Baseline score of 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?

Clearly states 'Read a file's content from a Gitea repository.' This specific verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling write-oriented tools like commit_changes or add_comment.

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?

Provides context about the sha field's relationship to commit_changes, advising that callers usually don't need to pass it forward because commit_changes fetches it internally. This indirectly guides when to use the tool for reading vs. writing, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative read tools.

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