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

Beyond the read-only/destructive annotations, it discloses conditional type-error appending depending on VM warmth, the exact asset return behaviors (image/text/binary summary), and the include_references graph sources. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations, and it substantially enriches them.

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 dense and front-loaded, with each paragraph covering a distinct concern (path scheme, pagination, references, assets, diagnostics). Some sentences are long and parenthetical-heavy, slightly reducing readability, but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with multiple modes (source files, hosted assets, reference graphs, diagnostics) and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It covers edge cases like binary asset summaries, image size limits, and cold-VM behavior, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for path, offset/limit, include_references, and each diagnostics enum value. Only projectId is left entirely to inference, which is a minor gap given its self-explanatory name and domain.

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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Read a file from a Floot project (cat -n style)') and enumerates the valid path scheme, making scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read_files, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives actionable when-to-use guidance: use offset/limit for large files, check include_references before renaming/deleting, and use rename_file when you want importers rewritten automatically. It also explains the diagnostics options (off/wait) and their trade-offs, leaving little decision-making to inference.

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