Read UTF-8 project files from a chosen workspace path while preventing out-of-bounds access, enabling safe file inspection during the current chat.
读取所选工作区内的 UTF-8 文本文件，禁止越界访问。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| workspace | No | 当前原生聊天所打开工作区的绝对路径；每次调用按当前聊天动态选择，不绑定安装目录。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world behavior are covered. The description adds that only UTF-8 text files are read and that out-of-workspace access is forbidden, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits error handling, truncation, and permission details.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, file type, and scope constraint.
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 3-parameter read tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics such as path or max_chars behavior, leaving the agent to infer important usage details.
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 only 33%, with 'path' and 'max_chars' undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate: it does not explain path format, what max_chars does, or the 30000 default limit, and only vaguely references the workspace parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: reading UTF-8 text files within the selected workspace. It also clarifies the access boundary ('禁止越界访问'), but does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool, as the listed siblings are unrelated.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase '读取所选工作区内的 UTF-8 文本文件'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.