直接返回文本类文件的内容（txt/md/csv/json/日志/代码等），AI 免下载即读。
二进制文件（图片/压缩包/Office 等）请用 download_file；超长文本按 max_bytes 截断并标记。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | 要读取的文本类文件 ID | |
| max_bytes | No | 最多返回字节数（默认 200KB，上限 500KB） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It discloses that binary files are not handled (and points to download_file) and that long text is truncated per max_bytes with a marker. However, it does not specify error behavior or the exact marker format, leaving some gaps.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core function. The second sentence efficiently covers exclusions and parameter behavior without unnecessary 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?
For a simple text-file reading tool, the description covers main function, binary file exclusion, and truncation behavior. It lacks an explicit statement about the response format (e.g., raw text), but the purpose is sufficiently clear. Given the lack of an output schema and complexity, this is adequate.
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 descriptions already cover all parameters (file_id, max_bytes) with types and bounds. The tool description adds behavioral meaning to max_bytes by explaining it truncates long text and marks the result, which is not captured in the schema. This adds semantic value beyond the structured fields.
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 explicitly states '直接返回文本类文件的内容' (directly returns content of text files) and lists common formats, making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling download_file by directing binary files there, which is strong 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?
The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: use for text files, avoid for binary files. It explicitly names the alternative tool: '二进制文件...请用 download_file' (for binary files use download_file), and explains the truncation behavior for long text via max_bytes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes. Some potential confusion exists between upload_file (a convenience wrapper) and the upload_init/chunk/complete sequence, but descriptions help clarify. The inclusion of scrape_url feels out of place but is also distinct.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_folder, delete_file, download_file). However, 'file_read' breaks the pattern (should be read_file), and 'get_file_info' uses get_ while others use list_. Overall minor inconsistency.
With 25 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable for a file management server that includes upload, download, sharing, and folder operations. A few tools (like scrape_url) seem tangential, but overall the scope justifies the count.
The tool surface covers most core file and folder operations (create, read, update/move, delete, list, search, upload, download, share, zip). Notable gaps include no rename_file tool and no ability to update file metadata. Still, the set is fairly complete for basic file management.