read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about automatic format and encoding detection, which goes beyond the basic 'read' action. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for unsupported formats), performance considerations, or output format details, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read file content with automatic format detection') and efficiently lists supported formats and encoding detection in a single, well-structured sentence. Every element adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and zero waste.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (reading various file types) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and supported formats, but lacks details on return values (e.g., content format, errors) and behavioral nuances. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 specific action ('Read file content') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_files' (searching), 'get_file_info' (metadata), and 'list_directory' (listing). It specifies the core functionality with format detection, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 implies usage by listing supported formats (text, PDF, Excel, etc.), suggesting it's for reading content from those file types. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_excel_sheet' (specific to Excel) or 'search_content' (searching within files), providing only implied context without clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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