read_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies UTF-8 encoding and project scope, but omits details about return values, error handling (e.g., file not found), or side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Single short sentence contains only relevant information, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No unnecessary words.

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 file read, the description covers the core purpose but lacks expected return value and error behavior. The optional projectPath is documented in the schema, but the required path remains ambiguous. No output schema exists, so the description should be clearer.

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?

The schema describes projectPath but not the required path parameter. The tool description does not explain how to format path or its relation to projectPath, so additional meaning beyond the schema is minimal. Coverage is 50% and the description does not compensate.

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 states the tool reads a UTF-8 text file within a Godot project, using a specific verb ('read') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_file (which writes) and load_sprite (which loads sprite resources).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies file reading but does not mention relationships to list_files or other file operations, nor does it state when not to use it.

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