fs_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that content is base64-encoded and that files over max_bytes are refused, offering specific behavioral traits beyond just 'read'. However, it omits error handling, path format, and whether any side effects exist.

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—'Read a file from the board'—followed by two crucial behavioral details. Every phrase earns its place, with zero wasted words.

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?

The core read operation and encoding are stated, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover more. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, error scenarios, and its relationship to sibling tools like fs_ls and fs_put, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It only references max_bytes indirectly ('refuses files over max_bytes') and provides no semantics for 'path' or 'port', leaving half the parameters undefined.

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 uses 'Read a file from the board' – a specific verb and resource – which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fs_ls, fs_put, and repl_exec. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for reading files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It implies the use case but doesn't discuss not using it for listing (fs_ls) or writing (fs_put).

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