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 context about 'size limits for safety', which is useful for understanding constraints, but it doesn't cover other behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, or what happens with large files beyond the limit. This leaves 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section, though this is minor.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameters, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on error cases or performance, which could enhance completeness for a file-reading tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'file_path' as 'Path to the file' and 'max_size_kb' as 'Maximum file size to read in KB', which clarifies the parameters beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths) or default behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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's purpose as 'Read the content of any file' with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'run_python_file', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentioning 'size limits for safety', suggesting it's for reading files within safe bounds, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directory' for file metadata or 'run_python_file' for executing code. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.

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