read_multiple_files

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true (non-destructive). Description adds behavioral details: partial failure (failed reads don't stop operation), image handling as viewable content, and path normalization. No contradictions 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?

Description is moderately sized with clear structure. First sentence captures purpose. Some repetition in path guidance could be condensed, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, description covers essential aspects: file reading behavior, image support, failure handling, directory constraints, and path recommendations. Sufficient for a file-reading tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description carries full burden. It explains that content is returned with path references and that images are handled. Adds path advice (absolute paths). Could be more specific about array constraints (e.g., max size) but adds significant value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously' with specifics on content handling (text and images) and lists recognized image types. Distinguishes from sibling 'read_file' by focusing on multiple 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?

Provides clear usage context: reads multiple files with partial failure handling and allowed directory constraints. Gives path guidance (absolute paths, normalization). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools like 'read_file' for single files.

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