Read file

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-mutating nature, and the description aligns with it. The description adds a 'safe size limit' caveat, but it does not explain what happens when that limit is exceeded or how the tool handles non-text or remote files.

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, front-loaded sentence without filler. The verb and resource come first, and the safety qualifier is compact and relevant.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool, the schema, readOnly annotation, and output schema already supply much of the needed context. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and details about the size limit, but these do not prevent correct selection or 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 100%: both path and host are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Read the contents') and resource ('a text file') with a useful safety qualifier. It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool read_log_file, since log files are also text files.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as read_log_file or get_journal_logs are mentioned. The 'text file' wording only implies general use rather than giving an agent selection criteria relative to sibling tools.

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