file_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'full text content' but does not mention the 102,400 byte default limit (only hinted in max_bytes schema), nor does it address encoding handling, binary file behavior, or error scenarios. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence with no fluff. However, it is too concise, sacrificing necessary details like parameter explanations and usage context. It earns its place but could be longer to improve clarity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, error conditions, or prerequisite session setup. Essential contextual information for a file read tool is missing, such as how the content is returned (string? lines?) and what happens if the file is binary.

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% (max_bytes has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for session_id or remote_path, leaving their purpose unclear. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, providing no added semantic value.

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 'Read the full text content of a remote file,' specifying the verb (read), resource (remote file), and scope (full text). This distinguishes it from siblings like file_download (downloads locally) and file_exists (checks existence). However, it does not clarify if it only handles text files or if binary files are supported, which could be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as file_download or exec. There is no mention of prerequisites, limits, or scenarios where reading text content is appropriate. The description lacks any context for distinguishing use cases among siblings.

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