Read local file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, making the safety profile clear. The description adds minor behavioral context by specifying encoding options (utf8 for text, base64 for binary), but does not disclose potential size limits or error handling behavior.

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 very concise with two short sentences, covering the core purpose and a key parameter detail. It is front-loaded with the essential action. Minor improvement possible by explicitly noting the Windows constraint more prominently or adding one more behavioral detail.

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 output schema, the description could better explain what is returned (file contents as string or base64). With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but leaves the 'path' parameter without additional context. The annotations cover safety traits adequately.

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 add meaning to parameters. It explains the 'encoding' parameter's purpose (utf8 for text, base64 for binary) and provides clear guidance beyond the enum values. However, the 'path' parameter remains unexplained beyond what the schema provides (required string).

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 any local file accessible to the current Windows user, using a specific verb ('read') and resource ('local file'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_file, edit_file, and list_directory by focusing on reading content.

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 basic usage context (reading files) and mentions encoding options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_files or path_info. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites like file existence or permissions.

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