Read local file

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: large files should be paged with offset and length, implying the tool may otherwise return very large content. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent avoid excessive reads.

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?

Two short sentences carry a clear purpose and an actionable usage rule. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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-only tool, the description covers selection and the main invocation concern (paging), but it omits return format details and the exact meaning of offset and length. Since there is no output schema, some expectation-setting would be valuable, though the tool's core use is intuitive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions offset and length as paging controls but does not specify their units or exact semantics, and path is only implicitly clear from the title. This is a partial hint, not enough to unambiguously invoke the tool.

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 explicitly names the action ('Read') and resource ('a local file'), and identifies the execution core, making it clear this is a file-content-reading tool rather than a listing or metadata tool. It does not explicitly contrast with get_file_info, but the content-read semantics are clear enough.

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?

It provides concrete guidance for large files: page with offset and length. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like get_file_info or list_directory, leaving some selection context implicit.

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