shared_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies 'one' file (limiting scope) and 'UTF-8' encoding, which are behavioral traits not captured in the schema or annotations. This adds value without contradicting the structured hints.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes to meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and is well-structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description leaves critical behavioral details unexplained. The two parameters are undocumented, full_output's effect is ambiguous, and there is no mention of error conditions or edge cases (e.g., missing file, non-UTF-8). For a tool with a required path and a boolean flag, the description is too minimal to guarantee correct invocation.

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 explain parameters to compensate. It does not mention 'path' or 'full_output' at all. The description gives no meaning for these parameters: an agent cannot infer that path is a required file path or what full_output controls (likely verbosity or content output). This is a significant gap given two parameters, one of which is a boolean that could drastically alter behavior.

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 ('read'), a resource ('one UTF-8 file'), and a location ('local shared workspace'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like shared_write (write) and shared_list (list files) by implying a single-file read, and the UTF-8 detail adds specificity. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this when you need file contents' or exclude cases like reading multiple files or directories. Among siblings like shared_write, shared_list, and host_exec, there is no routing help, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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